The Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research (JTAR) adheres to a stringent and transparent double-blind peer review process to guarantee the academic quality, originality, and relevance of each manuscript submitted. Our procedure is structured to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing and to assist authors through a fair and constructive evaluation.

1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

All submitted manuscripts initially undergo a preliminary review by the editorial team. During this stage, editors evaluate:

• Relevance to the journal's aim and scope

• Originality and potential contribution to the field of accounting theory

• Compliance with submission guidelines

• Overall structure, coherence, and academic language

Submissions that do not meet fundamental standards or are outside the journal's scope are desk-rejected, and authors are informed within 15 days of submission. When necessary, the editorial team consults with the scientific or editorial advisory board.

Manuscripts that successfully pass this stage are sent to peer reviewers.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JTAR utilizes a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential to promote impartiality.

Each manuscript is evaluated by two subject-matter experts, who may be members of the journal’s panel or external scholars with specialized knowledge in the relevant field. In certain instances, the Academic Editor may appoint additional reviewers if a broader range of expertise is needed.

Reviewers are allotted up to 10–14 days to finalize their assessment, although extensions may be granted in more complex situations. Authors are informed of any delays when necessary.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess submissions using a standardized review form, taking into account:

• Relevance to accounting theory and wider interdisciplinary issues

• Clarity and logical progression of argumentation

• Theoretical rigor and conceptual soundness

• Originality and contribution to scholarly discourse

• Methodological validity (where applicable)

• Utilization of academic sources and incorporation of literature

• Ethical considerations and adherence to academic integrity

All manuscripts are subjected to a plagiarism assessment. Any identified academic misconduct leads to immediate rejection.

4. Editorial Decisions

Informed by reviewer feedback and their own evaluation, the Academic Editor reaches one of the following conclusions:

• Accept

• Minor Revisions

• Major Revisions

• Reject

Authors who receive requests for revisions are generally allotted 10–15 days to submit a revised manuscript. Editors may grant additional time at their discretion, depending on the degree of revisions needed.

Upon resubmission, the manuscript may be subjected to another review cycle, followed by checks for language and formatting, as well as a final compliance verification with the journal’s standards.

The ultimate publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the editorial team, considering the journal’s publishing priorities, thematic relevance, and scheduling of issues.

5. Confidentiality and Ethics

The identities of reviewers remain confidential unless they choose to disclose their names.

Editors and reviewers are required to avoid any conflicts of interest and to uphold the confidentiality of the manuscript throughout the review process.

The editorial team strictly adheres to publishing ethics and expects the same commitment from authors and reviewers.

6. Finalization and Indexing

Once a manuscript is accepted, it is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and prepared for publication. Articles are indexed through Crossref, ensuring they are citable and traceable.