Amkop Management Accounting Review (AMAR) employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

This approach is intended to minimize potential bias and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated primarily on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, and relevance to the journal's scope.

All research articles, empirical studies, conceptual papers, literature reviews, systematic literature reviews, and other scholarly manuscripts considered appropriate by the editorial team are subject to the peer review process.

Editorials, invited papers, and other non-research contributions may be reviewed at the discretion of the editorial team.

The Editor first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it falls within the scope of the journal and meets the minimum academic and editorial standards required for peer review.

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are insufficiently original, methodologically weak, outside the journal's aims and scope, inconsistent with academic writing standards, lacking a clear scholarly contribution, or substantially inconsistent with the journal's submission requirements.

The selection of appropriate reviewers is an important part of maintaining the integrity and quality of the journal's peer review process.

AMAR selects reviewers with relevant expertise in management, human resource management, strategic management, marketing, entrepreneurship, finance, organizational behavior, digital business, financial accounting, management accounting, auditing, taxation, accounting information systems, corporate governance, sustainability reporting, and other disciplines relevant to the manuscript under review.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection also considers potential conflicts of interest with authors, institutions, research projects, or other circumstances that may compromise the independence of the review.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.
• Assess the quality and relevance of the theoretical framework.
• Examine the appropriateness of research design and methodology.
• Evaluate the quality, accuracy, and transparency of data analysis.
• Assess the interpretation of research findings and discussion.
• Examine the relevance, quality, and accuracy of references.
• Identify potential ethical concerns or academic integrity violations.
• Provide constructive, objective, and academically justified recommendations.
• Complete reviews within the specified timeframe.
• Maintain confidentiality and declare potential conflicts of interest.

AMAR applies a two-tier review structure to ensure that each manuscript demonstrates both methodological quality and meaningful scholarly contribution.

First Tier: Methodological and Research Quality Assessment

The first stage of the review focuses primarily on the academic and methodological quality of the manuscript.

• Clarity and relevance of the research problem.
• Appropriateness of the theoretical framework.
• Clarity of research objectives and hypotheses.
• Suitability of the research design.
• Adequacy of sampling procedures.
• Validity and reliability of research instruments.
• Appropriateness of analytical techniques.
• Accuracy and transparency of data reporting.
• Consistency between research questions, methods, results, and conclusions.

Second Tier: Scholarly Contribution and Research Impact

The second stage evaluates the significance and contribution of the manuscript to management and accounting scholarship.

• Theoretical contribution.
• Practical, managerial, or accounting implications.
• Relevance of findings to existing literature.
• Originality and novelty.
• Strength of interpretation and discussion.
• Implications for organizations, policymakers, practitioners, or society.
• Potential for further research.
• Overall contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate submitted manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality: New ideas, findings, perspectives, models, or applications.
• Research Relevance: Importance and relevance of the research problem.
• Theoretical Foundation: Quality and adequacy of theories and previous literature.
• Methodological Quality: Rigor of research design, sampling, instruments, and analysis.
• Quality of Analysis: Accuracy and appropriateness of data analysis.
• Results and Discussion: Clarity and connection of findings to theory and existing literature.
• Scholarly Contribution: Contribution to knowledge, practice, policy, or society.
• Presentation Quality: Clarity, organization, coherence, and readability.
• References: Relevance, adequacy, accuracy, and recency of references.
• Ethical Considerations: Research ethics, citation integrity, transparency, and disclosure standards.

AMAR is committed to providing authors with timely editorial decisions while maintaining a thorough and rigorous peer review process.

The following timeline provides an estimated schedule for the editorial and review process.

• 1–2 weeks: Initial editorial screening.
• 3–6 weeks: First round of peer review.
• 1–2 weeks: Editorial decision following reviewer reports.
• 2–4 weeks: Author revision period.
• 2–4 weeks: Review of revised manuscripts, where necessary.
• 1–2 weeks: Final editorial decision.

Important Note: The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision rounds, and author responsiveness.

These durations are indicative rather than guaranteed processing times. Additional review rounds may be required when substantial methodological or scholarly concerns remain unresolved.

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.
• Minor Revisions: Limited clarification or corrections are required.
• Major Revisions: Substantial revision is required before further consideration.
• Reject and Resubmit: A substantially revised new submission may be considered.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

All editorial decisions are accompanied by appropriate reviewer comments and editorial feedback to help authors understand the reasons for the decision and, where appropriate, improve their manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision-making process but do not automatically determine the publication outcome.

Authors whose manuscripts require revision receive reviewer comments and editorial guidance describing the aspects that should be improved.

Authors are expected to respond carefully to all reviewer and editor comments before resubmitting the manuscript.

Revision Requirements

Revised manuscripts should normally include:

• A clean version of the revised manuscript.
• A tracked or highlighted version, when requested.
• A point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
• Updated tables, figures, data, or supplementary materials where applicable.

When authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear academic justification supported by appropriate evidence or references.

The editorial team may return a revised manuscript to the original reviewers or invite additional reviewers when further independent assessment is necessary.

AMAR provides an appeals mechanism for authors who believe that an editorial decision may have resulted from a significant misunderstanding, factual error, procedural issue, or inappropriate interpretation of the manuscript.

Authors wishing to appeal should submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, clearly explaining the academic or procedural grounds for reconsideration.

The Editor-in-Chief may request an independent assessment from another editorial board member or additional reviewer who was not involved in the original decision.

Appeals are evaluated objectively and do not automatically guarantee acceptance or a new review process.

The decision following the appeal process is considered final.

AMAR recognizes the essential contribution of reviewers to maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal.

Reviewer recognition and development initiatives may include:

• Reviewer certificates.
• Acknowledgement of reviewer contributions.
• Recognition of active or outstanding reviewers.
• Opportunities to participate in the journal's reviewer network.
• Invitations to editorial or academic activities.
• Professional development opportunities in peer review.

Reviewer participation is generally voluntary and is regarded as an academic service contributing to the advancement of scholarly communication.

All participants in the peer review process are expected to maintain high ethical standards.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized parties.

Reviews must be objective, academically justified, respectful, and constructive. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

Core Ethical Principles

• Confidentiality: Protecting unpublished manuscript content and research information.
• Conflict of Interest: Declaring relationships or interests that may influence impartial judgment.
• Objectivity: Evaluating research based on evidence and scholarly merit.
• Academic Integrity: Respecting originality, research transparency, and proper attribution.
• Constructive Criticism: Providing respectful and actionable academic recommendations.
• Timeliness: Completing reviews within agreed deadlines whenever possible.
• Intellectual Property: Respecting unpublished ideas, research data, and author rights.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research, commercial advantage, or other unauthorized purposes.

Suspected ethical violations, including plagiarism, fabricated data, manipulation of peer review, or undisclosed competing interests, should be reported confidentially to the editorial team.

AMAR is committed to continuously improving its peer review system to maintain high standards of scholarly publishing.

The journal's continuous improvement activities include:

• Regular evaluation of reviewer performance and review quality.
• Monitoring consistency and fairness of editorial decisions.
• Receiving feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors.
• Updating peer review guidelines when necessary.
• Improving reviewer selection procedures.
• Strengthening publication ethics and research integrity.
• Adopting relevant developments in scholarly peer review practices.
• Periodically reviewing editorial policies and procedures.

Through these efforts, AMAR seeks to strengthen the transparency, credibility, consistency, and academic value of its editorial and peer review processes.