Peer Review Process

Journal Intelektual · Editorial Policy

How Manuscripts Are Reviewed

Editors screen each submission before sending eligible manuscripts for double-blind peer review. Reviewer assessments inform the editor’s publication decision.

 Review model

Double-blind

Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

 Reviewers per manuscript

At least two

Editors appoint reviewers with relevant expertise.

 Reviewer turnaround

Two weeks

The review period begins when the manuscript is sent to the reviewer.

Review Stages

  1. Editorial Screening

    Editors first assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, follows its author guidelines, and meets its academic standards.

  2. Peer Review

    Manuscripts that pass screening go to reviewers for independent assessment. Reviewers examine originality, the research methods, analysis, findings, and contribution to accounting. They submit comments and a recommendation to the editors.

  3. Author Revision

    When editors request changes, authors revise the manuscript in response to the feedback from reviewers and editors.

  4. Editorial Decision

    The editor considers the reviewers’ recommendations and any revisions before making the final decision. The journal communicates the decision to the author by email.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers recommend one of the following outcomes to the editor.

 Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication.

 Minor Revisions

The manuscript needs limited changes to address the comments.

 Major Revisions

Substantial changes to the analysis, argument, or presentation are needed.

 Reject

The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or has fundamental weaknesses.

Confidentiality and Review Ethics

Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential and assess the work on its merits. They notify the Editorial Secretary about conflicts of interest, suspected plagiarism, or requests for more time.

The journal publishes two issues per year. Browse the issue archive.