Reviewer Guidelines

Peer-Review Assessment

Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Accounting and Management (JAM)  |  e-ISSN 3048-345X

These guidelines are an evaluation instrument for reviewers. The journal's review model, editorial stages, reviewer selection, and decision authority are governed by the Editorial and Peer Review Policy. Reviewers advise the editor; the editor makes the decision.

1. Before Accepting an Invitation

Accept only when you:

  • have appropriate subject or methodological expertise;
  • can complete a careful review by the deadline stated in OJS;
  • have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict that could compromise independent judgment; and
  • can protect the manuscript and all related files as confidential editorial material.

Decline promptly if any condition is not met. Disclose uncertainty to the editor; do not independently contact the authors. A reviewer who recognizes an author in a double-anonymous review should inform the editor if that knowledge may create a conflict.

2. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Appropriate Tool Use

  • Do not share, reproduce, cite, retain, or use unpublished content for personal or professional advantage.
  • Do not delegate the review or disclose the manuscript to another person without prior editorial permission.
  • Do not upload manuscripts, tables, figures, data, or review text to public generative-AI or other third-party services that may store or reuse content.
  • Do not use AI to replace scholarly judgment or generate a review report. Any journal-approved assistive tool remains subject to confidentiality and disclosure requirements.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, duplicate submission, unethical research, citation manipulation, or undisclosed competing interests privately to the editor with specific evidence.
  • Use respectful, evidence-based language. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, threats, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

3. Core Evaluation Criteria

Area Questions for assessment
Scope and significance Does the manuscript fit JAM's accounting or management scope? Is the problem relevant and the intended contribution worthwhile?
Originality and contribution Is the gap explicit? Are novelty and theoretical, methodological, managerial, professional, or policy contributions supported rather than merely claimed?
Title and abstract Do they accurately represent the study? Does the abstract state purpose, method, principal results, conclusion, and contribution without unsupported claims?
Introduction and literature Is the reasoning coherent from context and literature to gap, objective, and contribution? Is literature relevant, critical, balanced, and sufficiently current, with necessary seminal work?
Method Is the design appropriate, transparent, rigorous, and sufficiently reproducible? Are sampling, measures, procedures, analysis, limitations, ethics, and data handling justified?
Results Do findings answer the questions or hypotheses? Are statistics or qualitative evidence accurate, complete, and consistent across text, tables, figures, and abstract?
Discussion Are findings interpreted critically and compared with relevant work? Are implications, contribution, limitations, and future directions proportionate to the evidence?
Conclusion Does it directly answer the objective without new data, new citations, overgeneralization, or unsupported recommendations?
Presentation and references Is the manuscript coherent and readable? Are tables and figures necessary and legible? Do citations and references match, use credible sources, and follow APA 7 consistently?

4. Method-Specific Checks

QuantitativeDesign; population and sampling; sample-size justification; operationalization; validity and reliability; assumptions; estimation and robustness; effect sizes or uncertainty where appropriate.
QualitativeApproach and context; participant selection; researcher position; data adequacy; coding and analysis; credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, and triangulation where appropriate.
Mixed MethodsRationale for integration; design and sequence; quality of both components; point and method of integration; consistency of integrated inference.
Review or Conceptual WorkClear question; database/source selection; reproducible search and eligibility process where applicable; quality appraisal; transparent synthesis; conceptual logic; distinction from prior reviews or frameworks.

5. Ethics and Research-Integrity Checks

Assess whether the study reports applicable ethics approval, consent, privacy safeguards, lawful use of confidential or proprietary data, authorship and contribution information, funding, competing interests, data availability, and material use of generative AI. Do not investigate authors independently or contact their institution; send concerns and evidence to the handling editor.

A similarity percentage alone is not proof of plagiarism. Identify the overlapping passage or work and explain its significance. Editorial action is governed by JAM's Plagiarism and Data Fabrication, Ethical Oversight, and related integrity policies.

6. Writing the Review Report

A. Brief assessment
Summarize the manuscript's purpose, approach, contribution, and overall strengths or central concern without restating the abstract.
B. Major comments
Number the issues that materially affect validity, interpretation, originality, ethics, or contribution. Explain why each issue matters and suggest a feasible remedy where possible.
C. Minor comments
Number specific corrections involving clarity, definitions, presentation, citations, tables, figures, or limited technical errors. Refer to page, section, paragraph, table, or line where possible.
D. Confidential comments to the editor
Use this field for conflicts, integrity concerns, sensitive evidence, or reasoning that should not be disclosed to the author. Do not contradict the author-facing report without explaining the reason.
Constructive review: distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions. Do not demand citation of the reviewer's work unless it is genuinely relevant, and do not rewrite the manuscript or impose personal stylistic preferences.

7. Recommendation Categories

Recommendation Appropriate when
Accept The manuscript is publishable with no substantive change; this recommendation should be uncommon on first review.
Revisions Required Limited, clearly defined corrections can be verified without redesigning the study or changing its central conclusions.
Resubmit for Review Substantial but potentially remediable issues require major revision and another expert assessment.
Decline The work is out of scope, lacks a defensible contribution, contains fundamental methodological or ethical problems, or cannot be made reliable through reasonable revision.

Select the closest OJS recommendation and ensure it is supported by the report. The editor may reach a different decision after considering all reviews, journal priorities, policies, and additional evidence.

8. Completing the Review

  1. Submit the report and recommendation through OJS by the agreed deadline.
  2. Check that uploaded files do not reveal your identity or contain tracked personal information unless disclosure has been authorized.
  3. Delete local review copies after the review and any authorized follow-up are complete, subject to lawful institutional retention requirements.
  4. Do not communicate the recommendation or editorial decision directly to the author.
  5. If invited to assess a revision, evaluate the authors' response and the revised content rather than reopening resolved issues without good reason.
Policy boundary: these guidelines support reviewer assessment and reporting. They do not replace the Editorial and Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest, Generative AI, or Appeals and Complaints policies. Guideline version: August 2026.