Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Review Model

IJAEDF operates a double-blind peer review process: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. Authors must therefore anonymise their manuscript file (no names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or self-identifying citations on the main manuscript). A separate title page with author details is uploaded as a supplementary file.

Editorial Workflow

1. Submission & technical check (1–3 days). Editorial office verifies file completeness, anonymisation, scope fit, language quality, formatting, and similarity index (iThenticate / Turnitin, threshold < 10%).
2. Editor-in-Chief desk review (within 7 days). The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor evaluates scope, originality, and methodological soundness. Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage.
3. Reviewer assignment. The handling editor invites at least two independent expert reviewers from outside the authors' institution and country of affiliation where possible. Reviewer conflicts of interest are screened.
4. Review (4–6 weeks). Reviewers submit a structured evaluation on originality, literature engagement, methodology, results, contribution, and presentation, plus a confidential recommendation.
5. First decision (within 8 weeks of submission). One of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The decision letter consolidates all reviewer comments.
6. Author revision. Authors return a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to reviewers. Typical windows: minor revision 21 days; major revision 60 days.
7. Re-review & final decision. Revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers. The handling editor and Editor-in-Chief make the final decision.
8. Production & publication (4–6 weeks). Copy-editing, typesetting, DOI registration, proofing, and online publication under CC BY 4.0.

Indicative Timeline

• Initial decision: within 8 weeks of submission
• Final decision: typically within 16 weeks
• Online publication after acceptance: within 4–6 weeks

Times may vary with reviewer availability and revision complexity. Authors are kept informed if delays are anticipated.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and all communications as confidential. Do not share with colleagues or use generative-AI services that retain inputs.
• Conflict of interest: Decline the invitation if any personal, financial, professional, or institutional conflict exists.
• Objectivity: Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.
• Timeliness: Submit reviews within the agreed window (typically 4 weeks). Notify the editor promptly if more time is needed.
• Integrity: Alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, ethical violations, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Acknowledgement of sources: Identify relevant published work that has not been cited.

Editor Responsibilities

• Ensure decisions are based on scholarly merit alone.
• Maintain the confidentiality of authors and reviewers.
• Recuse from manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.
• Investigate misconduct allegations following COPE flowcharts.

Author Conduct During Review

Authors must not contact reviewers directly, must not submit the manuscript elsewhere while under review, and must respond to all reviewer comments in their revised submission. Disagreement with a reviewer is permitted, provided the response is reasoned and evidence-based.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions in writing to editor@ijaedf.com within 30 days, stating the grounds for appeal. See the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement for the full appeals procedure.

Become a Reviewer

Researchers with a doctoral degree or equivalent expertise in accounting, ERP, or digital finance are invited to register as reviewers by writing to editor@ijaedf.com with a brief CV and areas of expertise.