Peer Review Process

1. General Policy

All manuscripts submitted to JEKAMI: Journal of Accounting undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of the published works. In this process, both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other to promote an unbiased and fair evaluation.

The peer review process is designed in accordance with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adheres to the Scopus Publication Ethics and Transparency Standards.

2. Review Stages

The review process in JEKAMI: Journal of Accounting consists of several systematic stages as follows:

Step 1: Submission Screening

  • Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the Editorial Office to ensure compliance with the Author Guidelines, Focus and Scope, and manuscript formatting based on the official journal template.

  • Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be returned to the authors for revision before entering the review process.

Step 2: Plagiarism Check

  • Every manuscript is checked for plagiarism using Turnitin or similar software.

  • The acceptable similarity index is below 20%.

  • Manuscripts exceeding this threshold will be automatically rejected or returned to the author for revision.

Step 3: Initial Editorial Evaluation

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine the manuscript’s relevance, originality, methodological quality, and contribution to the field of accounting.

  • Only manuscripts that meet the journal’s scientific and ethical standards will proceed to the peer review stage.

Step 4: Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study.

  • The reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

    • Originality and novelty of the study

    • Clarity of research objectives and questions

    • Adequacy of methodology and analysis

    • Theoretical and practical contribution

    • Quality of writing and logical presentation of results

    • Compliance with ethical standards

  • The review period typically takes 2–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.

Step 5: Review Results and Author Revision

  • Based on reviewers’ comments, the editorial team will make one of the following decisions:

    1. Accept without revision

    2. Accept with minor revisions

    3. Re-evaluate after major revisions

    4. Reject (not suitable for publication)

  • Authors are required to respond to reviewers’ comments point-by-point and submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline (usually 14–21 days).

Step 6: Final Decision

  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revision.

  • In cases where there are conflicting reviewer recommendations, a third reviewer may be appointed.

Step 7: Copyediting and Proofreading

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting and proofreading to ensure clarity, grammatical accuracy, and adherence to journal style.

  • Authors will receive a proof version for final approval before publication.

Step 8: Online Publication

  • After final approval, the article is published in the upcoming issue and made available open access on the journal’s official website.

  • The article receives a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) registered with CrossRef to ensure permanent accessibility and citation tracking.

3. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research background, and publication record in the relevant field.

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment.

  • Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

  • The identity of reviewers is kept strictly confidential throughout and after the review process.

4. Editorial Decision Transparency

All editorial decisions are made independently and based solely on academic merit. The journal upholds transparency, fairness, and accountability in every decision made during the publication process.

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, providing detailed justification and evidence.
Appeals will be reviewed in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies and may involve consultation with additional reviewers or editorial board members.

6. Ethical Standards

JEKAMI: Journal of Accounting fully adheres to the ethical publication standards set by:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

  • Elsevier’s Best Practice Guidelines on Peer Review

  • Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) principles

  • OASPA and DOAJ transparency and best practice guidelines