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

This review model is intended to minimize potential bias and ensure that editorial evaluation is based primarily on originality, scholarly merit, methodological rigor, theoretical relevance, analytical validity, and academic contribution.

All manuscripts considered for publication undergo an initial editorial screening before being assigned to independent reviewers, where appropriate.

AMAR welcomes empirical research, quantitative studies, qualitative studies, mixed-methods research, conceptual and theoretical studies, systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, bibliometric studies, and interdisciplinary research that contributes meaningfully to management or accounting scholarship.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor conducts an initial evaluation to determine whether the submitted manuscript meets the journal's minimum requirements.

Initial Editorial Screening

The initial editorial screening considers:

• Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
• Originality and relevance of the research topic.
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
• Adequacy of the theoretical foundations.
• Completeness of the research methodology.
• Quality of academic writing and presentation.
• Compliance with Author Guidelines.
• Research ethics and publication integrity.
• Similarity screening and proper citation practices.
• Potential contribution to management or accounting.

Manuscripts may be declined during initial editorial screening if they fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, demonstrate serious methodological weaknesses, contain substantial ethical concerns, or fail to meet essential submission requirements.

The selection of qualified and independent reviewers is fundamental to ensuring the credibility and academic integrity of the review process.

AMAR selects reviewers with relevant expertise in the two principal research areas: Management and Accounting.

Management Expertise

• Strategic Management and Business Policy
• Human Resource Management
• Leadership and Organizational Behavior
• Marketing and Consumer Behavior
• Entrepreneurship and MSMEs
• Financial Management
• Digital Business and Information Systems
• Innovation and Digital Transformation
• Operations and Supply Chain Management
• Corporate Governance and Sustainability

Accounting Expertise

• Financial Accounting and Reporting
• Management Accounting and Cost Accounting
• Auditing and Assurance
• Taxation and Tax Accounting
• Accounting Information Systems
• Public Sector Accounting
• Corporate Governance and Accounting Ethics
• Sustainability and ESG Reporting
• Forensic Accounting and Fraud Examination
• Accounting Analytics and Financial Disclosure

Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, publication records, methodological competence, and relevance to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection also considers potential conflicts of interest involving authors, institutional affiliations, research collaborations, financial relationships, and other circumstances that could compromise independent judgment.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.
• Assess the theoretical framework and its relevance to the research problem.
• Examine the appropriateness of research design, methods, and analytical techniques.
• Evaluate the validity and reliability of the research instruments, where applicable.
• Assess data quality, analytical accuracy, and transparency of reporting.
• Examine the interpretation of findings and their relationship with existing literature.
• Evaluate the theoretical, managerial, accounting, practical, or policy implications.
• Identify potential research integrity concerns, including plagiarism or improper citation.
• Provide objective, constructive, and academically justified recommendations.
• Maintain manuscript confidentiality and declare potential conflicts of interest.
• Complete their evaluation within the review period agreed upon with the editorial office.

AMAR evaluates manuscripts through two complementary dimensions: methodological and research quality, and scholarly contribution and academic significance.

These dimensions provide a structured framework for scholarly evaluation and may be assessed together within the same review round.

First Dimension: Methodological and Research Quality

The first assessment dimension focuses on the methodological soundness, transparency, internal consistency, and scientific reliability of the manuscript.

• Clarity of the research problem.
• Relevance of research questions and objectives.
• Appropriateness of the theoretical framework.
• Consistency of hypotheses or propositions.
• Suitability of research design.
• Appropriateness of sampling procedures.
• Validity and reliability of instruments.
• Accuracy of statistical or qualitative analysis.
• Transparency of data presentation.
• Consistency between methods and findings.
• Appropriate acknowledgment of limitations.
• Reproducibility or methodological transparency.

Second Dimension: Scholarly Contribution and Impact

The second dimension assesses the academic significance and contribution of the manuscript to management, accounting, and relevant interdisciplinary scholarship.

• Research originality and novelty.
• Contribution to theoretical development.
• Strength of academic argumentation.
• Relevance to existing scholarly literature.
• Significance of empirical findings.
• Contribution to managerial decision-making.
• Implications for accounting and financial practice.
• Relevance to organizational governance.
• Practical or public policy implications.
• Potential for further scholarly investigation.
• Contribution to sustainable organizational performance.
• Overall significance for the advancement of knowledge.

Reviewers evaluate submitted manuscripts using scholarly criteria that reflect the research standards and disciplinary orientation of AMAR.

Originality and Novelty

The manuscript should provide original findings, theoretical perspectives, analytical approaches, methodological insights, or meaningful applications relevant to management or accounting.

Research Relevance

The research problem should address significant academic, organizational, managerial, financial, institutional, or socioeconomic issues.

Theoretical Foundation

The manuscript should demonstrate an appropriate theoretical basis and engage critically with relevant and credible scholarly literature.

Methodological Quality

Research design, sampling, data collection, measurement, and analysis should be appropriate for the stated research questions and objectives.

Quality of Data Analysis

Analytical procedures should be conducted and reported accurately, with sufficient evidence to support the research findings.

Results and Discussion

Findings should be clearly presented and critically interpreted in relation to relevant theories, previous research, and the research objectives.

Scholarly Contribution

The study should explain its contribution to management or accounting knowledge, professional practice, organizational decision-making, or public policy.

Academic Presentation

The manuscript should demonstrate clarity, coherence, logical organization, appropriate academic language, and consistency with the journal's formatting requirements.

References and Citations

References should be relevant, accurate, appropriately cited, and sufficient to establish the theoretical and empirical foundations of the research.

Research Ethics and Integrity

The manuscript must comply with applicable ethical standards concerning research conduct, authorship, data integrity, transparency, plagiarism prevention, and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

AMAR seeks to provide timely editorial decisions while maintaining the rigor, independence, and academic quality of the review process.

The following timeline presents the journal's indicative manuscript handling stages.

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Typical Duration: 7 Days

The editorial team evaluates journal scope, submission completeness, originality, manuscript presentation, similarity screening, methodological adequacy, and compliance with editorial requirements.

Stage 2: Double-Blind Peer Review

Typical Duration: 20 Days

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening undergo independent scholarly evaluation. This stage includes reviewer assessment, editorial consideration of reviewer reports, and any revision procedures necessary before an editorial decision.

Stage 3: Production and Publication Preparation

Typical Duration: 10 Days

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, author proof verification, metadata validation, DOI registration, and publication preparation.

Stage 4: Online Publication

Following completion of production requirements, the final article is made available online through the journal's official publishing platform, together with the applicable publication metadata.

The indicated durations are estimates rather than guaranteed deadlines. Actual processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number and extent of required revisions, author responsiveness, and editorial workload.

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor after considering reviewer reports, manuscript quality, research integrity, and the journal's editorial standards.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial judgment but do not automatically determine the final publication decision.

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial requirements and is suitable for publication, subject to any necessary editorial or production corrections.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript demonstrates sufficient academic quality but requires limited corrections, clarification, or improvements before acceptance can be considered.

Major Revisions

The manuscript requires substantial improvements in its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, academic discussion, or overall presentation.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires significant revision and further scholarly evaluation before a final editorial decision can be made.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements or has limitations that prevent its acceptance.

Editorial decisions are communicated through the journal's submission system, accompanied by relevant reviewer comments and editorial guidance where appropriate.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the responsible editorial authority.

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to carefully address the comments provided by reviewers and the editorial team.

Revised manuscripts should demonstrate meaningful improvements in response to the identified theoretical, methodological, analytical, or presentation-related concerns.

Required Revision Documents

Depending on editorial instructions, authors may be required to submit:

• A clean version of the revised manuscript.
• A version showing tracked or highlighted changes, where requested.
• A point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
• Revised tables, figures, models, or appendices.
• Additional methodological explanations or supplementary evidence.
• Updated references and supporting literature.

Responses to reviewer comments should identify the modifications made, explain the rationale for each revision, and indicate where the changes appear in the manuscript.

When authors disagree with a reviewer comment, they should provide a respectful and academically justified explanation supported by appropriate evidence.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers when further assessment is necessary.

AMAR recognizes the importance of fairness, accountability, and transparency in the editorial decision-making process.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or other substantial academic concern may submit a reasoned appeal for editorial reconsideration.

Appeals should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and include:

• The manuscript title and submission details.
• The editorial decision being appealed.
• Specific academic or procedural grounds.
• Supporting evidence or relevant explanations.
• A clear request for reconsideration.

The Editor-in-Chief may consult an independent editorial board member or appoint an additional reviewer when further expert assessment is considered necessary.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original editorial decision. The outcome is determined through an independent and academically justified editorial assessment.

AMAR acknowledges the important contribution of reviewers in maintaining the reliability, scholarly quality, and integrity of academic publications.

Peer reviewing represents a valuable form of scholarly service and contributes to academic collaboration, professional development, and the advancement of management and accounting knowledge.

Reviewer Recognition

Subject to applicable editorial procedures, reviewer recognition and development initiatives may include:

• Certificates acknowledging completed peer review assignments.
• Recognition of reviewer contributions, consistent with confidentiality requirements.
• Opportunities to participate in the journal's academic reviewer network.
• Invitations to relevant academic and editorial activities.
• Professional development opportunities related to scholarly peer review.
• Consideration for future editorial collaboration based on expertise and reviewer performance.

Reviewer assignments are generally regarded as voluntary academic service. Recognition does not influence editorial independence or the objectivity of reviews.

All individuals involved in the peer review process are expected to uphold high standards of academic integrity, professionalism, confidentiality, objectivity, and ethical conduct.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated review materials are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content without appropriate authorization.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or research-related relationship that could compromise their independence.

Objectivity and Fairness

Manuscripts must be evaluated on scholarly merit rather than the authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, or other irrelevant considerations.

Constructive Academic Criticism

Reviewer comments must be respectful, evidence-based, academically justified, and directed toward improving the manuscript's scientific quality.

Research and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should report reasonable concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate citation practices, undisclosed conflicts, or other forms of research misconduct.

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers and editors must comply with AMAR's policy on the responsible use of artificial intelligence and must protect confidential manuscript information.

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, confidential data, and editorial correspondence must not be shared with external AI systems unless appropriate authorization, confidentiality safeguards, and data protection measures are in place.

Timeliness and Professional Responsibility

Reviewers should complete accepted review assignments within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the editorial team when circumstances prevent completion.

Further information is available in the journal's AI Policy , Screening for Plagiarism , and Privacy Statement .

AMAR is committed to continuously strengthening its editorial and peer review procedures to support responsible scholarly publishing, academic excellence, and research integrity.

The journal seeks to improve its peer review practices through:

• Periodic evaluation of review quality and reviewer performance.
• Monitoring the consistency and fairness of editorial decisions.
• Improving reviewer selection and manuscript assignment procedures.
• Encouraging constructive feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors.
• Updating editorial and peer review guidelines.
• Strengthening research ethics and academic integrity procedures.
• Improving transparency in editorial communication.
• Supporting relevant developments in scholarly publishing and peer review.

Amkop Management Accounting Review (AMAR) is committed to a peer review process that is rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, constructive, and academically accountable.

Through responsible editorial management and independent scholarly assessment, AMAR aims to publish research that advances management and accounting theories, strengthens evidence-based professional practices, supports responsible governance, and contributes to sustainable organizational and economic development.

Amkop Management Accounting Review welcomes expressions of interest from qualified academics, researchers, and professionals who wish to contribute their expertise to the journal's scholarly evaluation process.

Prospective reviewers should demonstrate relevant academic qualifications, research experience, methodological competence, and expertise in management, accounting, or related interdisciplinary areas.

Areas of Expertise

• Strategic and Human Resource Management
• Organizational Behavior and Leadership
• Marketing, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation
• Business Analytics and Digital Transformation
• Financial and Management Accounting
• Auditing, Taxation, and Financial Reporting
• Accounting Information Systems
• Corporate Governance and ESG Reporting
• Public Sector and Nonprofit Accounting
• Interdisciplinary Management and Accounting

Reviewers contribute to the advancement of scholarly knowledge by providing independent, constructive, and academically rigorous evaluations.

Interested applicants may register through the Vifada Publishing reviewer and editorial board application form.

Apply to Become a Reviewer

Applications are subject to editorial evaluation. Submission of an application does not guarantee reviewer appointment.

Amkop Management Accounting Review

Yayasan Vifada Cendikia Indonesia in collaboration with STIE AMKOP Makassar.

Email: publication@vifada.id

Website: https://ojs.vifada.id/index.php/amar