JATG - Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Accounting, Transparency and Governance (JATG) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to JATG undergo double-blind peer review, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the entire review process. JATG adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices in all aspects of its editorial process.

1. Review Model

JATG employs a double-blind peer review model. Authors must ensure that their manuscript files are fully anonymized prior to submission — removing all author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, funding information, and any other self-identifying references from the manuscript file. Author details must be entered only in the submission metadata fields of the OJS system. Reviewer identities are likewise kept strictly confidential from authors at all stages of the review process and are not disclosed after publication.

2. Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon receipt, all submissions undergo an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Managing Editor before being sent for peer review. This screening assesses the following:

1. Alignment with the journal's focus and scope
2. Compliance with author guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements
3. Originality and absence of plagiarism — verified via Turnitin (similarity threshold: <20%, excluding references)
4. Minimum academic quality in terms of research design, literature engagement, and scholarly contribution
5. Completeness of submission — including cover letter, anonymized manuscript, and any required supplementary files

Manuscripts that do not pass the editorial screening will be desk-rejected and returned to the corresponding author with brief feedback within 3–5 business days. A desk rejection does not preclude resubmission after thorough revision, provided the revised manuscript addresses the identified deficiencies.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject-area expertise. Reviewers are selected from JATG's reviewer panel based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and expertise in the manuscript's topic area. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to seek a third review in cases where reviewer recommendations are irreconcilably conflicting or where specialist input is required.

JATG makes every effort to avoid assigning reviewers who have a personal or professional relationship with the authors, are from the same institution, or have co-authored with the authors in the past five years.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide a structured evaluation of submitted manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Originality and scholarly contribution — Does the manuscript make a meaningful new contribution to knowledge in its field?
2. Theoretical and conceptual grounding — Is the theoretical or conceptual framework clearly articulated, appropriate, and well-justified?
3. Methodological rigor — Are the research design, sampling procedures, data collection instruments, and analytical techniques appropriate and sufficiently described to allow replication?
4. Quality of results and discussion — Are the findings clearly presented, logically interpreted, and situated in relation to prior literature?
5. Conclusion and implications — Are the conclusions supported by the evidence? Are theoretical, practical, and policy implications clearly articulated?
6. Writing quality and structure — Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and free from major language or structural deficiencies?
7. Ethical compliance — Does the manuscript adhere to research ethics standards, including proper attribution, data integrity, and (where applicable) ethical clearance for human subjects research?

5. Review Timeline

JATG is committed to a timely and efficient review process. The following target timeframes apply:

JATG targets a first-decision turnaround of 21–28 days from initial submission. Authors are notified promptly of any unavoidable delays. If no decision has been communicated within 45 days of submission, authors are encouraged to contact the editorial office at editor@imarjournal.org.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate one of the following decisions to the corresponding author:

1. Accept without revision — The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted. This decision is rare at first submission and reflects an exceptionally well-prepared manuscript.
2. Accept with minor revision — The manuscript is provisionally accepted subject to minor corrections (e.g., clarifications, additional references, minor restructuring). Authors must resubmit within 14 days. Revised manuscripts are typically assessed by the editor without being returned to reviewers.
3. Major revision required — The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before a final decision can be made. Authors must resubmit within 30 days together with a detailed point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Revised manuscripts will be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
4. Reject and resubmit — The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses in its current form but may be considered as a substantially revised new submission. The resubmitted manuscript will be treated as a new submission and undergo a full review cycle.
5. Reject — The manuscript does not meet JATG's standards in terms of originality, rigor, or scope and is not suitable for the journal. Authors may be provided with brief feedback to guide future work. The editorial decision on rejected manuscripts is final.

Authors are required to submit a response letter addressing each reviewer comment point-by-point when resubmitting a revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts submitted without a response letter will not be processed.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

All reviewers appointed by JATG are expected to adhere to the following professional responsibilities, consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

1. Accept review invitations only for manuscripts within their demonstrable area of expertise
2. Declare any potential conflict of interest to the editorial office before accepting a review assignment
3. Complete the review within the agreed timeframe of 21 days; notify the editorial office promptly and suggest an alternative reviewer if unable to complete the review
4. Provide objective, constructive, specific, and evidence-based feedback that assists authors in improving the quality of their manuscript
5. Avoid making personal or disparaging comments; critique must be directed at the work, not the author
6. Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript content, data, and arguments throughout and after the review process
7. Refrain from sharing, discussing, or using unpublished manuscript content for their own research purposes without explicit written permission from the authors
8. Refrain from contacting authors directly without the knowledge and permission of the editor

8. Conflict of Interest Policy

JATG requires all parties involved in the review process — authors, reviewers, and editors — to disclose any actual or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity or integrity of the editorial process.

For reviewers: Any personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship with the authors or the subject matter of the manuscript must be disclosed to the editorial office before accepting the review assignment. The editorial team will reassign the manuscript if a conflict of interest is confirmed.

For editors: Editors are recused from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest — including manuscripts submitted by close collaborators, students, or members of the same institution. In such cases, responsibility for the manuscript will be delegated to another editor or an independent Guest Editor.

For authors: All sources of funding and any financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived as influencing the research must be declared in the manuscript. If no conflict exists, authors must include the statement: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."

9. Publication Ethics and Misconduct

JATG subscribes to the COPE Core Practices and handles all cases of suspected publication misconduct — including but not limited to plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate or redundant submission, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and authorship disputes — in strict accordance with COPE guidelines and flowcharts.

When misconduct is suspected or alleged, the editorial office will:

1. Acknowledge receipt of the concern and inform the relevant parties
2. Conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern warrants a full investigation
3. Where appropriate, contact the author(s) or their institution for clarification or explanation
4. Take appropriate action, which may include rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, issuance of a correction or expression of concern, or notification of the authors' institution

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a manuscript has been unfairly rejected or that the review process has not been conducted in accordance with JATG's stated policies may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the decision notification and must include:

1. The manuscript reference number and title
2. A clear and specific statement of the grounds for the appeal
3. Supporting evidence or arguments as appropriate

Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer opinions, without substantive new arguments or evidence, will not be considered. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and communicate a final decision within 21 days. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief on appeals is final.

For complaints regarding editorial conduct or process, authors may contact the editorial office directly at editor@imarjournal.org. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, it may be escalated to the publisher (IMAR) at info@imarjournal.org.

11. Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

JATG is committed to maintaining the integrity and completeness of the published scholarly record. Where errors or misconduct are identified after publication, the journal will take appropriate corrective action in accordance with COPE guidelines:

1. Correction (Erratum): Issued when a minor error in a published article is identified that does not affect the conclusions or integrity of the research. A correction notice will be published and linked to the original article.
2. Expression of Concern: Published when there is inconclusive evidence of misconduct or a dispute that may affect the reliability of a published article, pending investigation.
3. Retraction: Issued when a published article contains fundamental errors, has been found to be plagiarized, constitutes duplicate publication, or otherwise cannot be relied upon. The retracted article will remain visible in the journal archive with a clear retraction notice, in accordance with best practice for the integrity of the scholarly record.

Requests for post-publication corrections or concerns about published articles should be directed to editor@imarjournal.org. JATG will acknowledge all such requests within 5 business days and communicate a decision within 30 days.