Peer Review Process

Overview

The Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Finance (JOCAF) is committed to maintaining high scholarly standards through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial office to determine its suitability for review. This stage includes:

  • Assessment of relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Evaluation of basic formatting and adherence to submission guidelines
  • Similarity check (plagiarism screening using appropriate software)
  • Preliminary quality assessment

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be rejected at this stage without external review. This process takes 5-7 days to complete.

Double-Blind Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Key Features:

  • Author anonymity: Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
  • Reviewer anonymity: Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • Independent and unbiased evaluation of manuscripts

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Contribution to accounting, finance, and related fields
  • Validity of results and discussion
  • Appropriateness of references and literature review

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript content
  • Identify relevant literature not cited by authors
  • Report any ethical concerns such as plagiarism or data manipulation

While review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, JOCAF aims to complete the review process within 4 to 8 weeks.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ reports, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

In cases of conflicting reviews, the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor may seek an additional review or make a final decision.

Revision Process

If revisions are required:

  • Authors are provided with reviewers’ comments and recommendations
  • A revised manuscript must be resubmitted within the stipulated timeframe
  • Authors must clearly highlight changes made and provide a response letter addressing all comments

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted for publication only when:

  • All reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed
  • The manuscript meets the journal’s academic and ethical standards
  • Final approval is granted by the Editor-in-Chief

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and publication scheduling.

Confidentiality and Ethics

JOCAF ensures strict confidentiality throughout the review process:

  • Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
  • Reviewers must not share or use manuscript content for personal advantage
  • Conflicts of interest must be declared and managed appropriately

The journal follows international best practices for publication ethics and aligns with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) principles.