Additional Menu
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines - Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Indonesia (JIAI)
Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Indonesia (JIAI) greatly appreciates the dedication and expertise of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, validity, and academic rigor of published accounting research. In strict alignment with international best practices and ethical standards, JIAI requires all reviewers to follow the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ensuring an objective, fair, and confidential evaluation process for every manuscript.
1. Confidentiality and Data Protection
Peer reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or disclosing any part of the manuscript with unauthorized individuals or utilizing unpublished data, arguments, or concepts for their own personal or research advantage. In accordance with the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, protecting the intellectual property and confidentiality of authors is an absolute professional obligation.
Peer reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or disclosing any part of the manuscript with unauthorized individuals or utilizing unpublished data, arguments, or concepts for their own personal or research advantage. In accordance with the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, protecting the intellectual property and confidentiality of authors is an absolute professional obligation.
2. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
Reviews must be conducted objectively, impartially, and professionally. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and constructive feedback, avoiding hostile, derogatory, or personal remarks directed at the authors. Following the standards specified in the COPE Guidelines for Constructive Peer Review, the primary goal of the review process is to help authors improve the quality of their work while providing editors with well-reasoned evaluations.
Reviews must be conducted objectively, impartially, and professionally. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and constructive feedback, avoiding hostile, derogatory, or personal remarks directed at the authors. Following the standards specified in the COPE Guidelines for Constructive Peer Review, the primary goal of the review process is to help authors improve the quality of their work while providing editors with well-reasoned evaluations.
3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must immediately decline an invitation to review if they have any potential conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, financial, institutional, or personal relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. In alignment with the recommendations found in the COPE Flowchart on Undisclosed Conflict of Interest in a Peer Reviewer, transparency regarding competing interests is mandatory to preserve the integrity of the peer review system.
Reviewers must immediately decline an invitation to review if they have any potential conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, financial, institutional, or personal relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. In alignment with the recommendations found in the COPE Flowchart on Undisclosed Conflict of Interest in a Peer Reviewer, transparency regarding competing interests is mandatory to preserve the integrity of the peer review system.
4. Promptness and Ethical Vigilance
Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the research or knows that timely completion is impossible, they must notify the editor promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Furthermore, if reviewers detect any substantial ethical concerns—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or dual submission—they must report them immediately, adhering to the protocols detailed in the COPE Guidance on Handling Reviewer and Manuscript Misconduct.
Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the research or knows that timely completion is impossible, they must notify the editor promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Furthermore, if reviewers detect any substantial ethical concerns—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or dual submission—they must report them immediately, adhering to the protocols detailed in the COPE Guidance on Handling Reviewer and Manuscript Misconduct.
