Peer Review Process

FUJAFR operates a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure impartial and objective evaluation.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their suitability with respect to the journal’s scope (as stated above), quality standards, and compliance with submission guidelines. The initial editorial screening typically takes 4–7 days.

FUJAFR prioritizes manuscripts that:

• Demonstrate methodological rigor and originality
• Contribute to theory, practice, or policy
• Address contemporary and emerging issues in accounting and finance
• Offer insights relevant to developing and transition economies

The journal adopts an inclusive and interdisciplinary approach, welcoming contributions from academics, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers across the globe.

Manuscripts may be rejected at the initial editorial screening stage without external peer review if they fall into any of the following categories:

• Lack of originality:
  Studies that do not demonstrate novelty or offer new insights beyond existing literature.
• Weak methodological rigor:
  Manuscripts with poorly designed research methods, inadequate data analysis, or unsupported conclusions.
• Out of scope submissions:
  Articles that do not align with the core areas of accounting, finance, or related interdisciplinary fields.
• Limited contribution to knowledge:
  Papers that do not significantly contribute to theory, practice, or policy in accounting and finance.
• Obsolete or non-contemporary topics:
  Research that does not address current or emerging issues in the field.
• Irrelevance to broader contexts:
  Manuscripts that fail to provide insights applicable to developing, transition, or global economies.
• Poor academic writing and structure:
  Submissions with unclear arguments, weak organization, or language issues that hinder understanding.
• Ethical concerns:
  Papers with evidence of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other ethical violations.

Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers for evaluation based on originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution to knowledge. The peer review process typically takes 4–8 weeks, although this may vary depending on reviewer availability and the nature of the manuscript.

Based on reviewers’ comments, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Authors are required to address reviewers’ comments and resubmit revised manuscripts within four weeks.

Upon resubmission, authors must provide a detailed response-to-reviewers observations, clearly indicating how each comment has been addressed, including justification where recommendations are not followed.

The revised manuscript is then:

• Assessed by the Editorial Board to verify that all required corrections have been adequately implemented; and
• Returned to the original reviewers (where necessary), particularly in cases of major revisions, for further evaluation.

A final decision is made only after the Editorial Board is satisfied that:

• Reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed;
• The manuscript meets the journal’s standards of quality, rigor, and clarity.

Failure to adequately address reviewers’ comments may result in rejection of the manuscript. The correction ascertainment stage typically takes 7 to 14 days.

Once a manuscript is accepted, it immediately enters the copyediting stage, where the manuscript is reviewed for clarity, grammar, consistency, and adherence to journal style. This is followed by the production stage, which includes typesetting, layout formatting, proofreading, and final author approval prior to publication. The journal ensures that these processes is conducted efficiently (within 14 days) to facilitate timely publication.