Double-Blind Peer Review
Every manuscript is screened by the Editor-in-Chief and assigned to at least two independent qualified reviewers. Author and reviewer identities are mutually concealed throughout the process.
Editorial Standards & Quality Framework
Publication Quality at IJAEDF
IJAEDF upholds the multi-dimensional quality standards expected of reputable academic journals — combining rigorous peer review, recognised editorial oversight, transparent metrics, COPE-aligned ethics, and persistent archiving. No single metric defines quality; we publish our full framework below.
Core Pillars
Six characteristics that define a high-quality journal
Reputable evaluation combines editorial rigor, ethical integrity, indexing, citation metrics, and scholarly impact — never a single number.
Expert Editorial Board
Board members are recognised scholars with institutional affiliations, verified publication records, and discipline-specific expertise in accounting, ERP, and digital finance.
Clearly Defined Scope
A focused academic remit — accounting, enterprise resource planning, and digital finance — with a defined target audience of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
Indexing & Discoverability
Submissions to major indexing services (Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, ABDC) are pursued from inception; current indexing status is disclosed transparently below.
COPE-Aligned Ethics
Editorial decisions follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, including plagiarism screening, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and a transparent retraction policy.
Persistent DOI & Archiving
Each accepted article receives a CrossRef DOI and is deposited in long-term digital preservation systems to guarantee permanent access.
Bibliometric Indicators
Citation metrics we will report transparently
As the journal becomes indexed, these metrics will appear on this page exactly as published by their respective providers — no inflated or self-calculated figures.
| Indicator | Abbr. | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Journal Impact Factor | JIF | Average citations per article over a two-year window (Clarivate JCR). |
| CiteScore | CiteScore | Scopus citation metric averaged over a four-year window. |
| SCImago Journal Rank | SJR | Weighted prestige metric — citations from high-ranked journals carry more weight. |
| Source-Normalized Impact per Paper | SNIP | Adjusts citation counts for differences in disciplinary citation cultures. |
| h-index | h | Combines productivity and citation impact across the journal's article record. |
| Eigenfactor | EF | Network-based influence measure derived from the structure of academic citations. |
Metrics correlate with reputation but do not by themselves capture article quality. IJAEDF privileges methodological rigor, transparency, reproducibility, and ethical integrity alongside any citation-based indicator.
Indexing & Databases
Current indexing status — disclosed honestly
We list real status (applied · under review · indexed). Predatory journals fabricate indexing claims; we will not.
DOAJApplication Planned
CrossRef (DOI)Application Planned
Scopus (Elsevier)Application Planned
Web of Science (Clarivate)Application Planned
ABDC Journal Quality ListApplication Planned
Google ScholarApplication Planned
Peer Review Workflow
A transparent, double-blind process
Authors deserve clear timelines and a documented review path. See the Peer Review page for full editorial policy.
1 · Editorial Screening
Scope check, formatting compliance, and plagiarism screening (typically within 7 days of submission).
2 · Reviewer Assignment
Editor assigns ≥ 2 double-blind reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
3 · Peer Review
Reviewers submit structured reports evaluating originality, rigor, and contribution (target: 4–6 weeks).
4 · Editorial Decision
Accept · Minor Revisions · Major Revisions · Reject — communicated with reviewer reports.
5 · Revision & Re-review
Authors respond point-by-point; revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers.
6 · Production & DOI
Copy-editing, typesetting, DOI assignment, and inclusion in the next quarterly issue.
Article-Level Standards
What a high-quality IJAEDF article looks like
Quality criteria
- Structured abstract with objectives, methods, findings, and contribution
- Robust methodology with sample, instruments, and analytical procedures disclosed
- Clearly articulated theoretical framework
- Statistical validity, including assumption checks and effect-size reporting
- Extensive, accurate referencing in a consistent academic style
- Ethical approval declared where research involves human subjects
- Reproducible findings: data and code availability statements encouraged
- Original contribution to scholarly knowledge
Expected structure
Empirical submissions typically follow the IMRaD-extended structure:
- 01Introduction
- 02Literature Review
- 03Methodology
- 04Results
- 05Discussion
- 06Conclusion
Conceptual, review, and case-based submissions may adapt this structure where appropriate.
Predatory-Publishing Safeguards
Red flags — and how IJAEDF rules them out
Academic integrity demands that authors can distinguish reputable journals from predatory ones. We publish our position on each common warning sign.
| Warning sign | How IJAEDF safeguards against it |
|---|---|
| Fake or absent peer review | Minimum two independent reviewers with documented reports; no acceptance without substantive review. |
| Aggressive solicitation emails | IJAEDF does not spam authors. All calls for papers are published on this website and through verified channels. |
| Hidden article processing charges | All APCs (or fee waivers) are disclosed up-front on the Open Access page before submission. |
| Fake indexing claims | The indexing table above states real status — applications, under-review, or indexed — and is updated as it changes. |
| Unrealistically broad scope | Scope is bounded to accounting, ERP, and digital finance. Out-of-scope submissions are desk-rejected. |
| Excessive issue volume | Stable quarterly schedule — no inflated issue counts to drive APC revenue. |
Recognised Evaluation Frameworks
How researchers can independently assess us
- Scopus Quartiles (Q1–Q4)
- ABDC Journal Quality List
- ABS / Academic Journal Guide
- Web of Science JCR Rankings
- ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia)
- DOAJ inclusion (Open Access)
IJAEDF welcomes independent evaluation against any of these frameworks. As tier assignments are awarded, they will be reflected here.
Submit work that meets these standards
Manuscripts demonstrating methodological rigor, originality, and a clear contribution to accounting, ERP, or digital finance are invited for our inaugural 2026 volume.