Peer Review Process

Jurnal Inovasi Akuntansi (JIA) is committed to maintaining the integrity, fairness, transparency, and quality of its editorial and peer-review processes. The journal's peer-review policy is guided by recognized principles of publication ethics, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor to determine their conformity with the aims and scope of Jurnal Inovasi Akuntansi (JIA), manuscript guidelines, originality, academic quality, and relevant publication ethics requirements.

At this stage, manuscripts may be:

  • returned to the authors for administrative or technical corrections;

  • rejected without external review (desk rejection) if they are outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, contain serious methodological or ethical concerns, or do not meet the journal's minimum requirements; or

  • forwarded for external peer review.

Research manuscripts will not be accepted for publication solely on the basis of the initial editorial screening.

2. Peer Review Model

Jurnal Inovasi Akuntansi (JIA) applies a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

All communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by the Editor. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding a manuscript under review without prior permission from the Editor.

Peer-review reports and manuscript materials are treated as confidential and are not publicly disclosed unless otherwise required by an applicable journal policy.

3. Selection and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, relevance to the manuscript's subject matter, ability to provide an independent assessment, and absence of competing interests.

Invited reviewers should accept a review assignment only when they:

  • possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript;

  • can provide a fair and unbiased assessment;

  • have no competing or conflicting interests that could influence their judgment; and

  • are able to complete the review within the requested or mutually agreed period.

Reviewers must disclose any potential personal, professional, financial, intellectual, institutional, or other competing interests to the Editor. When a competing interest may affect the impartiality of the review, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the Editor.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, reproduce, or use information obtained through the peer-review process for personal benefit, for the benefit of another person or organization, or to disadvantage the authors.

Reviewers must not involve another individual in the review process without prior permission from the Editor. Where another person is formally permitted to contribute to a review, their contribution should be disclosed to the journal.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript, including, where relevant:

  1. originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution;

  2. clarity of the research objectives and identification of the research gap;

  3. relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of JIA;

  4. appropriateness and rigor of the theoretical framework and research methodology;

  5. adequacy and transparency of data analysis;

  6. consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions;

  7. compliance with applicable research and publication ethics;

  8. appropriate acknowledgment and citation of relevant previous research;

  9. clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript; and

  10. potential indications of plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or manipulation, or other research and publication ethics concerns.

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit the manuscript or rewrite the manuscript according to their personal writing preferences. However, reviewers may identify language or presentation issues where they affect the clarity and scientific interpretation of the manuscript.

6. Ethical Conduct of Reviewers

Peer-review reports should be fair, honest, objective, constructive, evidence-based, and expressed in professional and respectful language.

Reviewers must not:

  • make hostile, defamatory, discriminatory, derogatory, or personal comments about the authors;

  • make accusations of misconduct without reasonable grounds;

  • use unpublished material contained in the manuscript for their own research or personal advantage;

  • intentionally delay the review process;

  • recommend unnecessary additional work that extends substantially beyond the scope of the submitted study; or

  • request citations to their own or their associates' publications merely to increase citation counts or visibility.

Any recommended citation should be based solely on legitimate scholarly relevance.

7. Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct

If reviewers identify or suspect plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research practices, undisclosed competing interests, or other potential violations of research or publication ethics, they should confidentially inform the Editor.

Reviewers should not independently investigate suspected misconduct or directly contact the authors regarding such concerns. The Editor will evaluate and handle the matter in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable ethical guidelines.

8. Review Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers are expected to provide clear and constructive comments identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and, where appropriate, suggestions for improvement.

The recommendation provided by a reviewer should be consistent with the comments contained in the review report.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision / Resubmit for Review

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the Editor, based on the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses and revisions, the journal's editorial standards, and, where necessary, consultation with other members of the Editorial Board.

9. Revision and Re-review

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and clearly identify the revisions made to the manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewer(s) or assigned to another qualified reviewer when the Editor considers additional assessment necessary.

Reviewers who have previously evaluated a manuscript may be invited to evaluate its revised version to assess whether the relevant comments have been adequately addressed.

10. Timeliness

JIA is committed to conducting peer review within a reasonable period and avoiding unnecessary delays.

Reviewers should promptly respond to review invitations and accept an assignment only when they are reasonably able to complete the review within the requested period. If additional time is required or circumstances prevent completion of the review, the reviewer should inform the Editor as soon as possible.

The detailed timeline for initial editorial screening, peer review, author revision, re-review, proofreading, and publication is provided in the journal's Editorial Process.

11. Editorial Independence and Submissions from Editors

Manuscripts submitted by Editors, Editorial Board members, or other individuals involved in the management of JIA are subject to the same editorial standards and peer-review requirements as other submissions.

To prevent conflicts of interest, such manuscripts will be handled by an independent Editor who has no involvement in the submitted work. The author who serves as an Editor or Editorial Board member will have no access to or involvement in reviewer selection, peer-review deliberations, or the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

12. Ethical Framework

The peer-review process of Jurnal Inovasi Akuntansi (JIA) is conducted in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and is informed by internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, particularly the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

The journal expects Editors, reviewers, and authors to uphold confidentiality, independence, fairness, transparency, accountability, and integrity throughout the publication process.