Review Model and Editorial Decisions

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.

Standard pathway: Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Author Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision.

Reviewer recommendations may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. They are advisory and do not determine outcomes through simple voting. The responsible academic editor evaluates the manuscript, reviews, author responses, revised version, integrity concerns, and journal policies before the final decision, subject to applicable journal governance. Divergent reviews may prompt clarification or an additional independent assessment.

AEFS accepts two manuscript types only: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper. Research designs, analytical techniques, datasets, bibliometric methods, and other methodological approaches do not constitute separate manuscript types.

Invitation, Expertise and Conflicts of Interest

• Accept an invitation only when the manuscript is within the reviewer's disciplinary or methodological expertise and can be reviewed within the stated timeframe.
• Promptly disclose actual or potential financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal conflicts of interest.
• Decline or consult the editor when independence or appropriate expertise cannot be assured. Disclose uncertain relationships before proceeding.
• Do not attempt to identify blinded authors, contact them directly, disclose the reviewer's identity to circumvent double-anonymous review, share the manuscript, or delegate the assignment without editorial authorization.

Scientific Review Criteria

• Relevance and contribution: Fit with a recognized AEFS scholarly field, research gap, originality, and contribution. All fields expressly listed in the Aims & Scope have equal standing; an additional economics, finance, or accounting variable is not required when the subject already falls within a recognized field.
• Scholarly grounding: A clear research or review question, coherent argument, and appropriate literature, theory, or conceptual framework.
• Methodological credibility: Transparent, defensible research or review procedures appropriate to the manuscript type and stated purpose.
• Evidence and interpretation: Credible analysis or synthesis, correspondence between results and conclusions, a substantive discussion, proportionate implications, and recognition of limitations.
• Research integrity: Ethics and consent where required, data transparency, accurate and verifiable citations and DOI information, and absence of serious originality or reference concerns.

Research Papers: Assess whether the Introduction establishes the problem, gap, purpose, novelty, and contribution; the Literature Review provides appropriate grounding; and the Research Methodology transparently reports design, context, sampling or cases, data, measures, procedures, analysis, and applicable ethics. Results should be accurate and consistent; the Discussion should interpret evidence in relation to theory, prior scholarship, context, and contribution; and the Conclusion should remain within the evidence and design limits.

Literature Review Papers: Assess whether the review approach is clearly identified and justified, the Review Methodology transparently reports literature identification, selection, organization, analysis, and synthesis, and the evidence base supports the stated purpose. Reviews should identify meaningful themes, relationships, contradictions, developments, gaps, or conceptual insights. Bibliometric mapping, network analysis, co-word analysis, or visualization alone is insufficient without substantive scholarly interpretation and synthesis.

Assess each manuscript according to its actual methods. Reviewers should not require unrelated analyses, impose a preferred method without justification, or coerce citations to their own work, AEFS, preferred journals, colleagues, or research groups. Reviewers are not copyeditors; identify language or presentation problems where they materially affect understanding.

Constructive Review Reports

Reports should distinguish major scientific concerns from minor presentational corrections, explain their significance, and provide actionable recommendations supported by the manuscript and relevant scholarship. Maintain professional, respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based language. A clear report may follow Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation.

Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, improper authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation or peer-review manipulation, or other integrity concerns confidentially to the responsible editor with evidence. Do not independently investigate authors or contact their institutions. Unpublished information must not be used for personal, professional, research, competitive, publication, or commercial advantage.

Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Authors asked to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the editor's and reviewers' comments. Reviewers should check that the response addresses each substantive issue, that stated amendments appear in the revised text, and that changes are adequately supported by evidence.

During subsequent rounds, review should prioritize unresolved issues from earlier decisions. New major requirements should be raised only when revisions introduce a material problem, new evidence reveals an important concern, or a significant scientific or integrity issue was reasonably missed.

Reviewer recommendations remain advisory; unresolved matters and final decisions are handled by the responsible academic editor.

Confidentiality, AI and Communication

Confidential manuscripts, extracts, unpublished data, author information, reports, and correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible or otherwise insecure AI services. Any proposed external assistance involving confidential content requires explicit editorial authorization and adequate safeguards. AI systems must not replace independent reviewer judgment.

Respond to invitations and submit reports within the stated timeframe. Inform the Editorial Office promptly of delays, insufficient expertise, emerging conflicts, suspected breaches, or technical difficulties. Qualified scholars may indicate reviewer interest through OJS registration; registration does not automatically confer reviewer status or guarantee an assignment.

The current reviewer framework applies to ongoing AEFS peer-review activities. Changes to scope, guidance, manuscript types, review forms, or procedures do not retrospectively invalidate legitimate historical review records or editorial decisions.

Reviewer administration: advancesresearch@gmail.com. Scientific-editorial correspondence: editor@advancesinresearch.id.

Reviewer Directory → · Publication Ethics → · Register as a Reviewer →