Peer Review Process
The Review of Business, Accounting, & Finance uses a double-blind review system. In order to maintain the integrity of the system, we request that you remove any version of your paper previously posted on public sites that may be easily accessible to potential referees.
Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope. A brief letter will inform authors of the desk rejection. The author(s) will not receive a referee report and cannot appeal this decision. If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double blind peer review. During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper. Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.
Resubmissions of a manuscript rejected by an Editor will not be considered except where the Editor has indicated that a resubmission of a new, completely revised manuscript on the topic is encouraged. For each manuscript that passes the initial editorial evaluation, the Editor will assign at least two expert reviewers to providing timely and constructive feedback to authors. All submissions sent out for review are subject to a double-blind peer review process. It is therefore important that authors prepare their manuscripts in such a way that the authors cannot be identified. Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it will be passed for production.
Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
1. Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).
2. Research articles and non-research articles (e.g. Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged.
3. Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behaviour or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
If there is suspicion of misbehaviour or alleged fraud the Journal and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation. If, after investigation, there are valid concerns, the author(s) concerned will be contacted under their given e-mail address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal’s and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
1. If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
2. If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
- a correction may be placed with the article
- an expression of concern may be placed with the article
- or in severe cases retraction of the article may occur.
3. The author’s institution may be informed
4. A notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included as part of the author’s and article’s bibliographic record.