Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

The "Journal of Accounting & Business Archive Review" (JABAR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and quality in its published research. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing the peer review process for JABAR manuscripts.

2. Principles of Peer Review

• Confidentiality: All reviewers and authors shall maintain strict confidentiality regarding the submitted manuscript and the review process.
• Objectivity: Reviews shall be conducted objectively and with due respect for the authors' work. Reviewers should avoid personal biases and focus on the scientific merit of the manuscript.
• Competence: Reviewers shall possess the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript’s contribution to the field of accounting and business archives.
• Timeliness: Reviews shall be submitted promptly within the agreed-upon timeframe.
• Constructive Feedback: Reviews shall provide clear, constructive, and specific feedback to the authors, enabling them to improve the quality of their manuscript.

3. Selection of Reviewers

• The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Associate Editors, will select reviewers based on their expertise, research interests, and availability.
• Reviewers with potential conflicts of interest (e.g., co-authors, current collaborators, institutional affiliations) will be excluded from reviewing the manuscript.

4. Review Process

• Authors will submit their manuscripts electronically through the journal's online submission system.
• Each manuscript will be assigned to two or more reviewers who will independently evaluate the manuscript based on the criteria outlined in the "Author Guidelines."
• Reviewers will submit their confidential reports to the Editor-in-Chief, including a recommendation for acceptance, rejection, or revision.
• The Editor-in-Chief will consider the reviewers' reports and make a final decision on the manuscript. The decision will be communicated to the authors, along with the reviewers' comments.

5. Appeals Process

• Authors who disagree with the Editor-in-Chief's decision may appeal the decision within a specified timeframe.
• Appeals will be reviewed by a committee of senior editors who will make a final decision on the appeal.

6. Ethical Considerations

• Reviewers and editors must comply with the highest ethical standards throughout the review process.
• This includes avoiding plagiarism, ghostwriting, and other forms of academic misconduct.
• Reviewers and editors should declare any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor-in-Chief.