Proses Peer Review

1. Introduction

Jurnal Akuntansi: Transparansi dan Akuntabilitas (JaKTA; in English, Journal of Accounting: Transparency and Accountability) applies a peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and suitability of every manuscript it publishes. This document describes the principles, workflow, assessment criteria, types of decisions, and ethical standards that guide authors, reviewers, and the editorial board.

2. Review Principles

Double-blind: reviewers do not know the authors, and authors do not know the reviewers.
Every manuscript that passes the initial screening is reviewed by at least two peer reviewers.
Assessment is objective and based on the scientific substance and technical aspects of the manuscript.
All manuscripts and review proceedings are confidential.
The final decision rests with the editor, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views.

3. Review Workflow

The review process begins when a manuscript is submitted through the journal system and ends when the article is published. In outline, it proceeds as follows.

Receipt of manuscript. Authors upload the manuscript with supporting files: an originality statement and a conflict-of-interest declaration. Editorial staff log the submission and confirm receipt to the author, usually within one to three days.

Initial screening. The editor checks whether the topic fits the journal's scope, whether the format and completeness meet the template, and what the similarity check shows. This stage is usually completed within seven days. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be returned or rejected without external review.

Assigning reviewers. Manuscripts that pass are sent to two reviewers who are experts in the field and have no relationship or interest connected to the author. The author's identity is hidden from reviewers and vice versa, so the review is double-blind.

Review. Each reviewer reads the manuscript carefully, assesses its substance and technical aspects, and completes the review form with written comments and a recommendation. Reviewers are expected to finish within about three weeks. If a reviewer lacks the time or feels unqualified, they should tell the editor so the manuscript can be reassigned.

Editorial decision. Once the reviews are in, the editor discusses them with the editorial board. If the two reviewers give widely different recommendations, the editor may ask a third reviewer. The decision is then sent to the author together with the anonymized reviewer comments.

Revision. If the manuscript needs improvement, the author revises it and resubmits it with a response to every reviewer comment. The editor checks whether all feedback has been addressed and may ask reviewers to re-evaluate. This may take more than one round.

Acceptance and publication. Accepted manuscripts undergo language and layout editing, and the author then checks the proofs. The article is then published in the current issue and made openly accessible.

4. Initial Screening

At this stage the editor decides whether the manuscript is suitable for further review. A manuscript may be rejected or returned to the author outright if its topic does not fit the journal's focus and scope, its format does not follow the template and author guidelines, its similarity exceeds 25% or there are signs of plagiarism including self-plagiarism, it is under consideration or already published elsewhere, or its scientific and language quality is not yet adequate for review.

5. Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewers consider several points. First, originality and novelty: how far the paper contributes to theory, practice, or policy and how it differs from earlier research. Second, fit with the journal's scope, particularly accounting, transparency, and accountability.

Third, the quality of the literature review and theoretical framework, including how current and relevant the references are and how clearly the problem or hypotheses are stated. Fourth, methodological soundness, covering design, data, sample, and analytical techniques, so that the study can be replicated. Fifth, results and discussion: whether the conclusions are truly supported by the data and the implications are well discussed. Sixth, writing quality, including structure, clarity of language, conformity with the template, and accuracy of citations and references.

Each reviewer writes clear, reasoned comments and gives a recommendation using the decision options in the next section.

6. Editorial Decisions

The editor makes one of four decisions based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editorial board's deliberation. A manuscript is accepted when it is publishable without substantial changes. Minor revision requires only light corrections that the editor can check alone. Major revision requires fundamental improvements and the manuscript will be re-reviewed. A manuscript is rejected if it does not meet scientific standards or does not fit the journal's scope.

7. Revision Process

The author receives the anonymized review results from the editor.
The author revises the manuscript and prepares a response table listing each reviewer comment and how it was addressed, or the reason a suggestion was not followed.
The revised manuscript and response table are uploaded through the system within the deadline set by the editor.
The editor verifies the revision. A manuscript that is still inadequate may be returned for another round.
An author who does not submit the revision by the deadline is considered to have withdrawn the manuscript, unless an extension is requested.

8. Review and Publication Ethics

The journal's publication ethics follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

8.1 Duties of Editors

Decide which manuscripts to publish based on scientific content, fairly and without discrimination.
Keep manuscripts confidential; information is shared only with the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher as needed.
Not use unpublished material from a manuscript in their own research without the author's written consent.
Avoid conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers and deciding on manuscripts.

8.2 Duties of Reviewers

Give objective feedback that helps the editor decide and the author improve the paper; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Tell the editor if they feel unqualified or cannot review on time.
Treat manuscripts as confidential and not discuss them with others without the editor's permission.
Point out relevant work the authors have not cited, and report any substantial similarity to other work they know of.
Not review a manuscript where a conflict of interest exists, and not use information from the review for personal advantage.

8.3 Duties of Authors

Report research accurately, with sufficient data and references for others to replicate the work.
Ensure the work is original, cite properly, and not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
List as authors only those who contributed significantly; the corresponding author ensures all authors approve the final version.
Disclose sources of funding and conflicts of interest.
Promptly notify the editor of any significant error found in their published work and cooperate in correcting or retracting the article.

9. Conflict of Interest

Authors and reviewers must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the objectivity of the research and review. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting the conflict-of-interest statement on behalf of all authors. Example: "The authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper."

10. Appeals

Authors may submit a written appeal to the editor-in-chief with scientific reasons and supporting evidence. The editor will consider it with the editorial board and, if necessary, appoint additional reviewers. The decision made after this stage is final.