Peer Review Process (Double-Blind)

  1. Peer Review Model

Finance, Accounting and Business Analysis (FABA) applies a double-blind peer review model. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Authors must prepare manuscripts in a manner that prevents direct or indirect identification.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor. This screening evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and scholarly contribution
  • Methodological soundness
  • Compliance with submission requirements
  • Ethical and integrity compliance (including plagiarism screening)

Manuscripts that fail to meet basic scholarly or policy standards may be rejected without external review.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications and publication record
  • Subject expertise
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Independence from the authors’ institutions

The journal does not use fabricated reviewer identities or author-suggested reviewers without independent verification.

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Theoretical grounding and literature engagement
  • Methodological rigor and data validity
  • Clarity of analysis and interpretation
  • Relevance to finance, accounting, and business analysis
  • Ethical compliance

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.

  1. Review Outcomes

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Reject
  • Major Revision
  • Minor Revision
  • Accept

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or formally authorized editor) after considering reviewer recommendations and author responses.

Editors are not bound by reviewer recommendations but must provide reasoned justification for decisions that diverge from reviews.

  1. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must:

  • Provide a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment
  • Clearly mark changes in the revised manuscript
  • Submit revisions within the specified deadline

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation (re-review), particularly in cases of major revision.

 

  1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must:

  • Not share or distribute manuscript content
  • Not use unpublished data for personal research
  • Not upload or disclose manuscript content to external AI tools or third-party platforms that retain data

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review process is completed.

  1. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including:

  • Personal relationships
  • Institutional affiliation overlaps
  • Financial interests
  • Competitive or collaborative relationships

If a conflict exists, the reviewer or editor must decline participation.

  1. Ethical Oversight in Peer Review

The editorial team monitors the peer review process to detect irregularities, including:

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Suspicious reviewer recommendations
  • Review manipulation attempts
  • Coercive citation practices

Any manipulation of the peer review process will result in rejection and may lead to further investigation.

  1. Timelines

The journal aims to ensure a timely review process while maintaining quality standards.

Indicative timelines:

  • Initial screening: approximately 30 days
  • First decision after peer review: approximately 75 days

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

  1. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision whenever possible.

Appeals must provide specific justification and supporting evidence. Reconsideration does not guarantee a change in decision.

  1. Transparency and Integrity

The journal maintains transparency by publicly describing its peer review process. All peer review practices align with recognized international standards for scholarly publishing integrity.