Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality, integrity, relevance, and credibility of Advances: Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis (AJEB).

AJEB applies a double-anonymous peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, confidential, objective, constructive, evidence-based, and professionally written evaluations that assist editors in making informed scholarly decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts.

Review reports may be prepared in Bahasa Indonesia or English, depending on the manuscript language, reviewer competence, and editorial context.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether they have the appropriate subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, and sufficient time to complete the review responsibly.

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript.

If uncertainty exists, reviewers should inform the editor and allow the editor to determine whether the review assignment remains appropriate.

Manuscripts received for review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or otherwise share manuscript content with unauthorized persons.

Information obtained during review must not be used for personal research, commercial advantage, professional advantage, competitive benefit, or any other unauthorized purpose.

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality, intellectual property, unpublished data, and privacy associated with submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, reasoning, recommendations, and professional judgment contained in their review reports.

AJEB uses a double-anonymous review model in which author and reviewer identities are ordinarily concealed from one another during the peer-review process.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify manuscript authors. If an author's identity becomes apparent through manuscript content or other circumstances, reviewers must continue to evaluate the work objectively and should inform the editor if the identification creates a relevant conflict of interest.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to its article type, research design, scholarly purpose, and disciplinary context. The following criteria provide a general framework.

AJEB publishes three principal article types. Reviewers should apply criteria appropriate to the scholarly purpose, methodological approach, and expected contribution of each type.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct a formal misconduct investigation, but should alert the editor when they identify credible concerns.

Reviewers should consider whether references are relevant, sufficient, appropriately current, accurately represented, and consistent with the claims made in the manuscript.

Reviewers should alert the editor to references that appear fabricated, non-verifiable, seriously inaccurate, or unrelated to the cited claim.

A useful review report should be specific, structured, constructive, and sufficiently detailed to explain the reviewer's assessment.

Reviewer comments should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors. Criticism should be professional, respectful, specific, and supported by clear scholarly reasoning.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions required for scholarly validity and optional suggestions that reflect personal preference.

Depending on the options available in OJS and the manuscript's condition, reviewers may provide recommendations such as:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or authorized Academic Editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision after considering the review reports, manuscript revision, journal policies, and relevant scholarly factors.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous round of review.

Reviewers should avoid introducing substantial new requirements at a later review stage unless new concerns become apparent through the revision or the additional request is necessary to protect scholarly validity, research integrity, or publication quality.

Reviewers should complete accepted assignments within the period specified in the OJS invitation whenever reasonably possible.

If circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should notify the Editorial Office promptly so that an extension or alternative reviewer can be considered.

Under AJEB's double-anonymous peer-review model, reviewers should not reveal their identity to authors through comments, filenames, document properties, tracked changes, signatures, or other identifiable information.

Where files are uploaded as part of the review process, reviewers should inspect document properties and remove personally identifying metadata where reasonably possible.

AJEB values the voluntary scholarly contribution of peer reviewers. Reviewer names may be acknowledged on the journal's reviewer page where appropriate and consistent with journal practice, while individual manuscript-review assignments remain confidential.

Public listing as an AJEB reviewer does not imply employment by the journal, membership in the Editorial Team, or responsibility for every manuscript published by AJEB.