Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

All submissions to Finance, Accounting and Business Analysis (FABA) undergo a mandatory initial editorial screening prior to external peer review. This stage ensures compliance with the journal’s academic standards, ethical policies, and technical requirements.

  1. Purpose of Desk Review

The desk review serves to:

• verify alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
• assess minimum scholarly quality and originality;
• confirm compliance with ethical and formatting standards;
• prevent unsuitable manuscripts from entering peer review;
• safeguard reviewer time and ensure process integrity.

  1. Scope and Thematic Fit

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s defined disciplinary focus. Submissions that are clearly outside the journal’s scope are rejected at this stage.

  1. Scholarly Merit and Contribution

Manuscripts are assessed for:

• originality and relevance;
• clarity of research objectives;
• methodological soundness;
• theoretical and/or empirical contribution;
• adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature.

Submissions lacking sufficient academic rigor may be declined without external review.

  1. Technical and Formal Compliance

The editorial office verifies:

• compliance with formatting guidelines;
• structured abstract and keywords in English;
• complete author affiliations and ORCID (where required);
• adherence to the required citation style;
• inclusion of funding statements and conflict-of-interest disclosures;
• ethical approval statements where human or animal subjects are involved.

Manuscripts not meeting these requirements may be returned for technical revision before further consideration.

  1. Similarity Screening

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software prior to peer review. Manuscripts with unacceptable levels of textual overlap, redundant publication, or unethical citation practices are rejected in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Plagiarism Policy.

  1. Language and Presentation Quality

Submissions must demonstrate sufficient academic language clarity. Manuscripts requiring substantial language editing may be returned to authors before peer review.

  1. Editorial Decision Outcomes

Following desk review, one of the following decisions is issued:

• Desk Rejection
• Technical Revision Required
• Proceed to Double-Blind Peer Review

Desk rejection decisions are based solely on academic and procedural grounds and are not influenced by authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or other non-scholarly characteristics.

  1. Timeframe

The desk review process is normally completed within 7–14 days of submission.

  1. Editorial Independence and Conflict Management

If a manuscript is submitted by an editor or member of the Editorial Board, it is handled independently by another qualified editor to ensure impartiality.

 

EDITORIAL WORKFLOW (PROCESS TRANSPARENCY SECTION)

You can place this under the same page as a visual process description.

Editorial Workflow Overview

Step 1 – Submission via Online System
Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s official submission platform.

Step 2 – Technical Check
Verification of formatting, metadata completeness, declarations, and required documents.

Step 3 – Similarity Screening
Automated plagiarism check prior to editorial evaluation.

Step 4 – Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
Scope alignment, academic merit assessment, and compliance check.

Decision A: Reject
Decision B: Return for Technical Revision
Decision C: Assign to Handling Editor

Step 5 – Double-Blind Peer Review
At least two independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript.

Step 6 – Editorial Decision
Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

Step 7 – Copyediting and Proofing
Language polishing, formatting, metadata verification, author approval.

Step 8 – Publication and DOI Registration
Final publication in scheduled issue and DOI activation.