Journal of Business Innovation and Accounting Research (JBIAR) applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Each manuscript is evaluated by approximately 5–10 experts selected according to their relevant fields of expertise. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor whose expertise corresponds to the subject area of the manuscript. The list of editors is available on the Editorial Board page. A summary of the editorial and review process is presented in the flowchart below.

A. Manuscript Pre-check
Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment. This stage evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with the journal template and submission guidelines, completeness of the required documents, relevance and originality of the research, and overall academic quality. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, substantially incomplete, or below the minimum academic and ethical standards may be rejected without external review.

B. Double-blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are processed through a double-blind peer-review procedure. To support the academic editors, the staff of Journal of Business Innovation and Accounting Research (JBIAR) manage communications with authors, reviewers, and external editors while maintaining the confidentiality of the review process.

Each manuscript is reviewed by approximately 5–10 independent experts whose academic backgrounds and research expertise are relevant to the manuscript’s subject. The number of reviewers may vary depending on the complexity, interdisciplinarity, methodology, and academic contribution of the submitted study.

Reviewers are normally expected to submit their evaluation reports within 2–3 weeks. However, the review period may be extended to approximately 5–6 weeks when additional time is required to obtain comprehensive assessments, involve additional specialists, resolve conflicting reviewer recommendations, or ensure a more rigorous and high-quality evaluation. Extensions may also be granted upon a reviewer’s reasonable request.

For revised manuscripts, reviewers are generally requested to provide their follow-up evaluation within 1–2 weeks. Additional time may be provided when substantial revisions, supplementary analyses, methodological verification, or further expert consultation are required.

C. Editorial Decision
After the peer-review reports have been received and evaluated, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor listed on the Editorial Board page.

The editor may issue one of the following decisions: accept the manuscript, accept with minor revisions, request major revisions, request an additional review, reject and allow resubmission, or reject the manuscript. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may appoint one or more additional experts before reaching a final decision.

If there is any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, data manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct, the editorial office will conduct further examination using Turnitin and other relevant verification procedures. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field.