Peer Review Process

The Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research (JTAR) adheres to a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and relevance of each submitted manuscript. Our review procedure is designed to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing and to provide authors with fair, constructive feedback.

1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:

Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Originality and potential contribution to the field of accounting theory
Compliance with submission guidelines
Structure, coherence, and academic writing quality

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

Manuscripts passing this stage proceed to peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JTAR employs a double-blind peer review system in which both author and reviewer identities are concealed to ensure unbiased evaluation.

Each manuscript is reviewed by two subject-matter experts, who may be members of the editorial board or external reviewers with relevant expertise. In special cases, the Academic Editor may assign additional reviewers for broader evaluation.

Reviewers are given 10–14 days to complete their assessment. Extensions may be granted in complex cases, and authors will be notified accordingly.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following:

Relevance to accounting theory and interdisciplinary insights
Clarity and logical flow of arguments
Theoretical depth and conceptual soundness
Originality and scholarly contribution
Methodological robustness (if applicable)
Quality and appropriateness of literature cited
Ethical compliance and academic integrity

All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism. Any evidence of academic misconduct results in immediate rejection.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer feedback and internal assessment, the Academic Editor issues one of the following decisions:

Accept
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Reject

For revisions, authors are typically given 10–15 days to submit the updated manuscript. Extensions may be allowed depending on the nature of revisions.

Revised submissions may undergo a second review cycle before proceeding to final checks for formatting, language, and compliance with journal standards.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, in coordination with the editorial team, based on publishing priorities and thematic relevance.

5. Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless explicitly waived by the reviewer.
Editors and reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest and maintain full confidentiality during and after the review process.
JTAR strictly adheres to publishing ethics and expects authors and reviewers to do the same.