Editorial Quality Assurance
Peer Review Process
Jurnal Econmark Accounting (JEA)
Economics • Management • Accounting
Review Model
Double-Blind Peer Review
Jurnal Econmark Accounting (JEA) applies a double-blind peer-review process to manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening. Under this model, authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another to support independent, objective, fair, and academically responsible evaluation.
All submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their relevance to economics, management, or accounting, as well as their originality, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, quality of evidence, research integrity, and scholarly contribution. Manuscripts must demonstrate a substantive contribution to at least one of the journal's three core disciplines.
Review Workflow
01
Manuscript Submission
Authors submit original manuscripts through the JEA online submission system. Submissions must comply with the author guidelines, include the required declarations, and provide an anonymized manuscript file suitable for double-blind review.
02
Administrative and Technical Check
The Editorial Team checks manuscript completeness, formatting, references, author information, research declarations, supporting documents, and compliance with submission requirements.
03
Editorial Scope Screening
The Editor examines whether the research problem, theoretical framework, data, analytical focus, and scholarly contribution are relevant to economics, management, or accounting. Manuscripts outside the journal's scope may be rejected without external review.
04
Originality and Research Integrity Check
Manuscripts are examined for originality, proper attribution, potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, ethical approval where applicable, and other publication ethics concerns. Similarity screening may support editorial assessment but does not replace substantive evaluation.
05
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's economic, managerial, or accounting focus. Reviewer selection considers disciplinary competence, methodological expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.
06
Double-Blind External Review
Reviewers independently assess the manuscript's originality, disciplinary fit, theoretical foundation, research design, data quality, analytical procedures, interpretation of findings, and contribution to economics, management, or accounting.
07
Author Revision
When revisions are requested, authors must respond carefully to editorial and reviewer comments, revise the manuscript accordingly, and submit a point-by-point response explaining how each concern has been addressed or providing a scholarly justification when a recommendation is not adopted. Additional review rounds may be required.
08
Final Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor evaluates reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, research integrity, methodological quality, and scholarly contribution before issuing an editorial decision. Acceptance is not guaranteed by positive reviewer recommendations alone.
09
Copyediting, Production, and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, final author verification, and publication preparation. Articles are published according to the journal's established publication schedule and editorial production requirements.
Mandatory Desk Review Criteria
Before external peer review, manuscripts must satisfy the following requirements:
01. The research addresses a substantive issue in economics, management, or accounting.
02. The research question and objectives are clearly formulated.
03. The manuscript demonstrates originality and a meaningful scholarly contribution.
04. The study presents an appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation.
05. The research methodology and analytical approach are suitable for its objectives.
06. The manuscript complies with research integrity and publication ethics requirements.
07. The submission meets the journal's technical and author-guideline requirements.
Reviewer Assessment Criteria
Originality and Novelty
Originality of the research question, evidence, analysis, and contribution to existing academic literature.
Disciplinary Relevance
Alignment with relevant theoretical and practical issues in economics, management, or accounting.
Theoretical Foundation
Appropriateness of the conceptual framework, supporting theories, literature synthesis, and research hypotheses where relevant.
Methodological Rigor
Suitability of research design, sampling, measurements, data sources, analytical procedures, and methods of ensuring reliability and validity or qualitative trustworthiness.
Results and Interpretation
Accuracy, transparency, analytical consistency, appropriate interpretation of findings, and acknowledgment of research limitations.
Scholarly Contribution
Theoretical, methodological, policy-related, or practical contributions to economic knowledge, managerial practices, or accounting scholarship.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept
Accepted for publication
Minor Revision
Limited changes required
Major Revision
Substantive revision required
Reject
Not suitable for publication
Final Editorial Authority
Reviewer recommendations provide essential scholarly input but do not independently determine publication outcomes. The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors retain responsibility for final decisions based on reviewer reports, author responses, research integrity, editorial policies, scope alignment, methodological quality, and the manuscript's scholarly contribution.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, and related materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest. Individuals whose independence or impartiality may reasonably be compromised should recuse themselves from the review or decision-making process.
Principle of Peer Review
The peer-review process of Jurnal Econmark Accounting (JEA) is guided by independence, confidentiality, fairness, methodological rigor, scholarly integrity, constructive criticism, and freedom from conflicts of interest. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and disciplinary relevance, without discrimination based on an author's institutional affiliation, nationality, religion, gender, or personal background.
Peer Review Flow
Submission → Technical Check → Scope Screening → Integrity Check → Reviewer Assignment → Double-Blind Review → Revision → Editorial Decision → Publication