text

Peer Review Process

Editorial and Peer-Review Process

The Journal of Business Innovation and Accounting Research (JBIAR) applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. When necessary, additional reviewers may be invited, particularly when reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the manuscript involves interdisciplinary or specialized methods, or additional expert assessment is considered necessary.

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers provide independent scholarly recommendations, while responsibility for the final editorial decision rests with the journal's editors.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. An editor who has a conflict of interest involving an author, institution, funding source, or subject matter of a manuscript will not participate in the editorial decision concerning that manuscript.

The members of the editorial team are listed on the Editorial Board page.

A summary of the editorial and peer-review process is presented below.

A. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

The editorial screening includes an assessment of:

  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • compliance with the journal's submission guidelines and manuscript requirements;

  • completeness of the submitted files and required information;

  • originality and academic relevance of the study;

  • clarity and general quality of the manuscript;

  • compliance with applicable research and publication ethics;

  • potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, or other publication-integrity concerns; and

  • suitability of the manuscript for external scholarly review.

The editorial office may use similarity-detection software, including Turnitin or other appropriate verification tools, as part of the screening and publication-integrity process.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or methodological standards, contains substantial ethical or publication-integrity concerns, or does not comply sufficiently with the journal's submission requirements.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

B. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial screening are assigned to an appropriate handling editor and normally sent to at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, methodological knowledge, publication record, and suitability for evaluating the submitted manuscript.

The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers:

  • have appropriate expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment;

  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process;

  • disclose potential conflicts of interest;

  • evaluate the manuscript independently; and

  • do not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

The double-blind review process is intended to minimize potential bias by withholding identifying information about authors from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors, as far as reasonably possible.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers.

An additional reviewer may be appointed when:

  • the initial reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations;

  • specialized methodological or disciplinary expertise is required;

  • questions arise concerning particular analyses, data, or interpretations;

  • the handling editor considers that additional scholarly assessment would improve the reliability of the editorial decision; or

  • one of the original reviewers becomes unavailable.

The number of reviewers therefore depends on the circumstances of the individual manuscript rather than on a fixed maximum number.

Review Period

Reviewers are normally invited to complete their initial assessments within approximately three to four weeks after accepting the review invitation.

However, the actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for specialized expertise, the number of review rounds, and the extent of revisions required.

The journal prioritizes the quality, independence, and integrity of peer review rather than guaranteeing an unusually short review or publication time.

Authors will be informed of significant developments in the editorial process through the journal's submission system.

For revised manuscripts, the handling editor may:

  • assess the revision directly;

  • return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers; or

  • invite additional reviewers when further independent evaluation is necessary.

The time required for subsequent review rounds depends on the extent of the revisions and the complexity of the issues being reassessed.

C. Editorial Decision

After sufficient peer-review reports have been received, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments together with the manuscript's academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than automatically determinative. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  1. Accept
    The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive further revision.

  2. Minor Revision
    The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter the study's methodology, analysis, or principal conclusions.

  3. Major Revision
    Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be considered further. A request for major revision does not constitute a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

  4. Additional Review Required
    The editor determines that further expert assessment is necessary before a final decision can be reached.

  5. Reject and Resubmission May Be Considered
    The manuscript requires substantial redevelopment beyond the scope of a normal revision, although a substantially revised new submission may be considered in the future.

  6. Reject
    The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in JBIAR.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor evaluates the scholarly basis of each report rather than making a decision solely on the number of positive or negative recommendations. The editor may request clarification from reviewers or appoint an additional independent reviewer when necessary.

D. Revision and Author Response

When revision is requested, authors are expected to submit:

  • a revised version of the manuscript; and

  • a detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify revisions and provide a reasoned academic explanation when a particular recommendation has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may undergo one or more additional rounds of peer review when considered necessary by the handling editor.

A request for revision should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the manuscript will ultimately be accepted.

E. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

JBIAR takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously.

If concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate text recycling, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, unethical research practices, or other potential misconduct, the editorial office may conduct additional investigations before or after publication.

The journal may use Turnitin and other appropriate verification methods to support these assessments.

Where appropriate, the journal may request explanations, supporting data, ethical approval documentation, authorship information, or other relevant evidence from the authors.

Cases involving suspected publication misconduct will be handled in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics and the journal's applicable editorial policies.

F. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical compliance, relevance, and contribution of the submitted work.

Decisions are made independently of authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, commercial considerations, or payment of publication fees.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, where applicable, does not influence peer review or editorial decisions.

The publisher, journal management, sponsors, and other parties must not interfere with individual editorial decisions.

G. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript except when required for legitimate editorial evaluation or where disclosure is required under applicable ethical or legal procedures.

Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal's double-blind peer-review model.

H. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief determines that it has satisfactorily completed the required editorial and peer-review process.

Following acceptance, the manuscript may undergo copyediting, language editing, reference checking, metadata verification, typesetting, proofreading, and final production checks.

Authors may be requested to review and approve proofs before publication.

The journal reserves the right to correct formatting, metadata, references, and presentation issues during production while preserving the scholarly meaning and integrity of the accepted manuscript.