Peer Review Process

JFR: Journal of Finance and Reporting applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

Each submitted manuscript undergoes the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript:

  1. Fits the journal’s focus and scope;
  2. Follows the author guidelines and journal template;
  3. Meets basic academic and methodological standards;
  4. Demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly contribution;
  5. Complies with publication ethics; and
  6. Has a similarity index of no more than 25%.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in accounting, finance, or related fields.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, research experience, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

3. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  1. Originality and significance of the research;
  2. Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
  3. Clarity of the research objectives;
  4. Appropriateness of the research methodology;
  5. Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation;
  6. Quality of the discussion and conclusions;
  7. Adequacy and relevance of references;
  8. Clarity and organization of the manuscript; and
  9. Compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accepted;
  2. Accepted with minor revisions;
  3. Major revisions required;
  4. Resubmission for review; or
  5. Rejected.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editor. When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer.

5. Revision Process

Authors must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. A detailed response to each comment must be submitted together with the revised manuscript.

Authors who disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation must provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions are required.

6. Final Evaluation

After the revision has been approved, the editor conducts a final evaluation to ensure that all academic, ethical, and technical requirements have been fulfilled.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and publication.

7. Review Period

The peer-review process is generally completed within two to four weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

The overall process from submission to publication may vary according to the quality of the initial manuscript and the authors’ responsiveness during revision.

8. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal, academic, institutional, or financial benefit.

Reviewers must decline the review assignment if they have a personal, professional, institutional, academic, or financial conflict of interest with the authors or the research.

9. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must:

  1. Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript;
  2. Conduct the review objectively and professionally;
  3. Submit the review within the agreed period;
  4. Avoid personal, discriminatory, or unsupported criticism;
  5. Identify relevant references that have not been cited;
  6. Report suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other misconduct; and
  7. Refrain from requesting unnecessary citations for personal or institutional benefit.

JFR is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, and academically responsible peer-review process.