Reviewer Policies

Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)

The International Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation takes conflicts of interest very seriously, especially in the context of the peer review process. Our aim is to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, impartially, and without any bias. To achieve this, we ask that all reviewers disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to reviewing a manuscript.

What is a Conflict of Interest?

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when a reviewer’s personal, financial, or professional relationships have the potential to influence their judgment or objectivity in reviewing a manuscript. Examples of conflicts of interest may include:

  • Financial Conflicts: Any financial interest in the subject matter of the manuscript or any financial relationship with the authors.
  • Personal Relationships: Close personal or familial relationships with any of the authors.
  • Professional Relationships: Any professional or academic collaborations with the authors within the last 3 years.
  • Competing Interests: Any personal, academic, or career interests that may be influenced by the reviewer's evaluation of the manuscript.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest at the time of accepting the review assignment. If a conflict of interest arises after agreeing to review the manuscript, the reviewer must notify the editorial office immediately and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest may lead to the manuscript being reviewed by other reviewers, or in some cases, the manuscript being rejected outright.

How Conflicts of Interest are Managed

  • Reviewer Recusal: If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer will be excluded from evaluating that manuscript.
  • Alternate Reviewers: The editorial board will assign alternative reviewers to ensure a fair review process.
  • Transparency: The disclosure of conflicts is not shared with the authors, but the editorial team ensures that it is documented and addressed.

For more information on conflicts of interest, please see the COPE guidelines: COPE Guidelines for Conflict of Interest.

Reviewers Guidelines

As a reviewer for the International Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation, you play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the research published in our journal. Below are the detailed guidelines for reviewers to follow:

General Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Expertise: Reviewers should only accept manuscripts for review in their area of expertise. If a manuscript falls outside of your area of expertise, you are encouraged to inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

  2. Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to keep all manuscripts and related materials confidential. Manuscripts should not be discussed with others or shared outside of the review process.

  3. Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to return reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe. If there are delays or any difficulty in meeting deadlines, reviewers should notify the editorial team immediately.

  4. Constructive Feedback: Reviews should provide constructive, clear, and detailed feedback. The aim is to help authors improve their work, not to criticize their research. Reviewers should avoid overly harsh or subjective comments.

  5. Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted with impartiality and objectivity. Any personal bias, prejudices, or external pressures should not influence the review. Focus on the manuscript’s merits, methodology, clarity, and relevance.

Specific Review Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following aspects:

  1. Relevance and Originality: Is the manuscript relevant to the scope of the journal? Does the research present original ideas and contribute new knowledge to the field?

  2. Clarity and Structure: Are the aims and objectives of the study clearly stated? Is the manuscript well-organized and easy to follow? Check if the title, abstract, and conclusion align with the content.

  3. Methodology: Is the research methodology sound and appropriate for the research questions? Are the methods clearly described, and are the results presented in a way that can be replicated?

  4. Literature Review: Does the manuscript engage with relevant and up-to-date literature? Are the citations comprehensive and appropriate for the research topic?

  5. Results and Analysis: Are the results presented clearly? Are the analyses accurate, and do they support the conclusions drawn? Is statistical analysis conducted correctly (if applicable)?

  6. Ethical Considerations: Is there evidence that the research was conducted ethically? Has the author obtained informed consent if the study involved human participants? Are any conflicts of interest disclosed?

  7. Contribution to the Field: Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to the literature in accounting, auditing, or taxation? Does it offer insights that can impact policy, practice, or future research?

  8. Language and Style: Is the manuscript written in clear, concise language? Are there any issues with grammar, spelling, or typographical errors?

Types of Recommendations

As a reviewer, you will be asked to provide a recommendation based on your evaluation of the manuscript. The following are common recommendations:

  1. Accept without revisions: The manuscript is well-written and makes a significant contribution to the field with no changes required.

  2. Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript has good potential but requires some minor revisions to improve clarity, grammar, or completeness.

  3. Accept with major revisions: The manuscript has some good elements but requires substantial changes, such as in the methodology or presentation of data.

  4. Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal due to significant issues with methodology, analysis, relevance, or other major flaws.

Ethical Review

Reviewers should also be aware of the following ethical responsibilities:

  • Plagiarism Detection: Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript is free from plagiarism. The journal uses plagiarism detection software, but reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected plagiarism.

  • Data Fabrication or Falsification: If you suspect that data may have been fabricated or falsified, please notify the editor-in-chief immediately. The journal follows strict ethical guidelines in handling such cases.

  • Respect for Authors: Reviews should be respectful and provide feedback in a professional and constructive manner. Harsh or derogatory comments are not acceptable.

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure

As previously mentioned, any potential conflict of interest (financial, personal, or professional) must be disclosed when you accept a manuscript for review. If a conflict is identified during the review process, reviewers should recuse themselves and inform the editorial office immediately.

Reviewers should also ensure that they do not review manuscripts written by colleagues, students, or individuals with whom they have close personal or professional ties.