Reviewer Guidelines

Akhasia: Jurnal Akuntansi Syariah · STEI Permata Bojonegoro

Reviewer Guidelines

 

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly integrity. These guidelines describe what Akhasia: Jurnal Akuntansi Syariah expects from our peer reviewers at every stage, ensuring evaluations remain rigorous, objective, evidence-based, constructive, and ethical.

COPE-aligned Double-blind peer review Islamic accounting ethics
2+
independent reviewers per manuscript
2–4 wks
standard review timeframe
Double-Blind
mutual anonymity preserved
100%
confidentiality guaranteed
Standards. These guidelines adhere strictly to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and promote transparent, sound scholarly assessment.
1

The Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers act in an advisory capacity to the editorial board. Final publication decisions rest exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate submissions objectively, fairly, and strictly within their domain of scholarly competence in Islamic accounting, auditing, taxation, and Sharia corporate governance.
  • Provide constructive, detailed, and evidence-supported feedback that assists authors in enhancing their manuscript's scientific value.
  • Alert handling editors confidentially to potential ethical infractions, data fabrication, text recycling, or plagiarized material.
  • Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the entire evaluation process.
2

Before Accepting an Invitation

Reviewers should accept an evaluation request only if they can confirm all of the following conditions:

Expertise.
The manuscript aligns directly with your research expertise in Islamic accounting, AAOIFI/IFRS Sharia standards, Sharia auditing, Islamic taxation, or governance.
Time.
You are able to commit the time required to complete a thorough review within the agreed timeframe (normally 2–4 weeks).
Impartiality.
You have no personal, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest that could compromise an objective assessment.
Personal Review.
You will complete the review personally without delegating to junior colleagues or students without prior editorial consent.
3

Confidentiality Obligations

Every submitted manuscript is a privileged, strictly confidential document. Reviewers must:
  • Not share, copy, or discuss any part of the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial workflow.
  • Not utilize unpublished concepts, financial data, or empirical findings for personal or academic research prior to publication.
  • Never contact the authors directly — all correspondence must proceed strictly via the OJS portal.
  • Delete or securely destroy all downloaded manuscript files after submitting the review report.
4

What to Evaluate

Reviewers should assess both strengths and areas requiring improvement across all manuscript sections:

Section Core Questions to Consider
Title & Abstract Is the title concise and representative? Does the abstract clearly state the research problem, methodology, key findings, and practical/policy implications?
Introduction Is the background well-situated within current Islamic accounting and Sharia finance literature? Is the theoretical or empirical research gap clearly established?
Methodology Is the research design sound? Are econometric models, sampling frameworks, statistical validation (e.g., PLS-SEM, panel regression, content analysis), or fiqh methods robust?
Results & Discussion Are findings clearly presented with formatted tables (no raw output screenshots)? Are empirical results critically compared against prior accounting and Sharia literature?
Conclusion & Implications Do conclusions derive directly from empirical findings? Are practical recommendations for Islamic financial institutions, regulators, and accountants clearly articulated?
References Are references up-to-date (predominantly last 10 years, >80% journal articles) and formatted strictly in APA 7th Edition?
5

Research Ethics & Financial Data Confidentiality

In Islamic accounting and finance research, reviewers must exercise vigilance regarding research ethics and data transparency:

Respondent Consent:
Surveys, interviews, or behavioral experiments involving accountants, auditors, or bank customers must confirm informed consent.
Financial Data Confidentiality:
Studies utilizing proprietary corporate records, non-public banking data, or internal audit findings must ensure proper authorization or anonymization.
No AI in Peer Review:
Reviewers must never upload confidential manuscripts into public AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) as this violates author copyright and data confidentiality.
6

Submitting Review Recommendations

Accept Submission
The manuscript meets publishing standards without requiring substantive conceptual modifications.
Minor Revisions
The core research is sound; requires small textual improvements, literature updates, or clarity adjustments.
Major Revisions (Resubmit)
Strong potential, but requires significant theoretical restructuring or empirical re-analysis; subject to re-review.
Decline Submission
Fatal methodological flaws, serious scope mismatch, or fundamental integrity issues that revisions cannot resolve.

Editorial Office Support

For any questions regarding reviewer assignments, evaluation deadline extensions, or ethical suspicions, please contact the Editor-in-Chief via official correspondence at: [email protected].