Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are subject to a double-blind review process, through an online system. The review process takes 6-8 weeks and its main focus is the novelty of the manuscripts and their contributions to accounting and business development.

Peer Review Process

  • The corresponding author submits the manuscript through SAR (Soedirman Accounting Review): Journal of Accounting and Business online system along with the Copyright Transfer Agreement. 
  • The SAR Editorial Board will check the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations as well as the possibility of cases of scientific misconduct including authorship, ownership, and plagiarism.
  • The SAR Editorial Board checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting and then notifies the submissions and informs the authors if the papers are suitable for the journals. At this point, the Chief Editor may give the assignment to the editors. 
  • The assigned editor sends invitations to at least two (2) appropriate reviewers. Therefore, the manuscript will be sent to two reviewers for reviewing process.
  • Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
  • All of the contributions of the SAR are subject to a double-blind peer-review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.  
  • At least two reviewers review every submitted paper. The review process is an online process and contains a clear referees' statements concerning paper's publishing approval or its rejection
  • In case of minor revisions, the article is sent to the author(s) together with reviewers opinions. The authors are asked to respond to the reviewers' comments and make the appropriate adjustments in the text. Then, the authors send back the corrected version. 
  • The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
  • If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.