Peer reviewers contribute to the scholarly quality, integrity, rigor, relevance, and credibility of Advances: Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis (AJEB). Reviewers provide independent expert assessments to assist academic editors in evaluating manuscripts and to help authors strengthen the clarity, methodological rigor, scholarly interpretation, and substantive contribution of their work.

AJEB welcomes qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the journal's Aims & Scope, including economics, business economics, development studies, management, organizational behavior, human resource management, marketing, entrepreneurship, innovation, accounting, finance, auditing, taxation, corporate governance, sustainability, ESG, operations management, research methodology, and related recognized scholarly areas.

Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, independent, respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based. Reviewer recommendations inform academic editorial evaluation but remain advisory. Final scientific-editorial responsibility rests with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Editor-in-Chief.

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

AJEB applies double-anonymous peer review. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject, theoretical, conceptual, or methodological expertise.

Authors prepare a Blinded Manuscript separately from the Title Page & Author Information Form. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers must not attempt to identify anonymized authors, request unauthorized identifying information, or circumvent the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

The normal scientific-editorial pathway is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision. Accepted manuscripts subsequently enter the applicable post-acceptance administration, copyediting, proofreading, production, metadata-verification, and publication processes.

AJEB recognizes three principal manuscript types: Research Papers, Literature Review Papers, and Conceptual Papers. Each type must be evaluated according to its scholarly purpose, methodological or conceptual characteristics, available evidence, and appropriate standards of academic rigor.

Research Papers: Original empirical, analytical, quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, comparative, archival, econometric, longitudinal, case-based, methodological, or other defensible research approaches that make a substantive scholarly contribution.

Literature Review Papers: Rigorous scholarly reviews using an accurately identified and sufficiently transparent systematic, integrative, structured, bibliometric, meta-analytical, theoretical, or other defensible literature-review approach. Manuscripts must provide meaningful synthesis, critical interpretation, and an identifiable scholarly contribution.

Conceptual Papers: Scholarly contributions involving theory-building, conceptual advancement, framework development, propositions, or policy- and practice-oriented intellectual contributions. These manuscripts must demonstrate coherent reasoning, relevant scholarly grounding, originality, and clear theoretical or conceptual significance.

Manuscript-Type Principle: Reviewers must evaluate each manuscript according to the requirements appropriate to its actual article type. Research methods, analytical techniques, software, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual contributions should be assessed according to their scholarly relevance and must not automatically be treated as separate manuscript categories.

The reviewer's primary responsibility is to assess the manuscript's originality, scholarly relevance, theoretical or conceptual foundation, research or review methodology, analysis or synthesis, interpretation, research integrity, evidence quality, and substantive contribution within AJEB's current Aims & Scope.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript falls sufficiently within their scholarly or methodological expertise, that they can provide an independent and impartial assessment, that no material conflict of interest exists, and that they can complete the review within the timeframe requested by the AJEB Editorial Office.

Expertise: Reviewers should accept assignments only when their subject knowledge, theoretical or conceptual understanding, and methodological competence are sufficient to evaluate the manuscript responsibly.

Availability: Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can reasonably complete a careful and evidence-based review within the requested period.

Independence: Reviewers should decline an assignment or seek editorial guidance when relevant financial, institutional, professional, collaborative, academic, or personal interests could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent judgment.

Confidentiality: Reviewers must be able to protect the manuscript, supplementary materials, unpublished findings, editorial correspondence, and review records from unauthorized disclosure or use.

Where expertise is insufficient, a material conflict exists, or the requested timeframe cannot reasonably be met, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the responsible academic editor promptly.

Reviewers are not expected to function as copyeditors. Language, formatting, terminology, citation presentation, and other editorial issues may be identified when they materially affect scholarly understanding, but peer review should focus primarily on scientific validity, methodological rigor, research integrity, evidentiary support, relevance, originality, and contribution.

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly materials. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, forward, discuss with unauthorized individuals, or use unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, underlying data, research findings, review reports, editorial correspondence, or associated information for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, publication, or research advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors through internet searches or document metadata, disclose their identities to circumvent double-anonymous review, or delegate review responsibilities to another individual without authorization from the responsible academic editor. Any proposed involvement of another person must be disclosed and approved in advance.

Relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly. Examples include recent or ongoing research collaboration, close professional relationships, significant institutional connections, supervisory relationships, financial interests, or direct academic competition that could materially affect impartiality.

When uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, reviewers should explain the circumstances to the responsible academic editor and allow the editor to determine whether continued participation or reassignment is appropriate.

Generative AI and Confidentiality: Confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished data, author information, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible Generative AI systems or external automated services where confidentiality, privacy, copyright, intellectual-property protection, data security, or appropriate information handling cannot be assured.

Any proposed use of external AI-assisted services involving confidential manuscript material requires explicit authorization from the journal and appropriate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards. Reviewers must not assume that the availability of an AI tool constitutes permission to submit confidential scholarly material to that service.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent reading, critical analysis, methodological assessment, interpretation, or scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, integrity, and academic justification of their reports and recommendations.

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript demonstrates meaningful scholarly relevance to AJEB's stated Aims & Scope and satisfies the standards appropriate to its article type, disciplinary context, research design, conceptual approach, and intended contribution.

1. Scope Relevance: Does the manuscript address a substantive scholarly problem within one or more recognized AJEB research domains? Is its scholarly contribution meaningfully connected to economics, business, management, organizations, markets, accounting, finance, governance, sustainability, development studies, or another area expressly included in the current Aims & Scope?

2. Originality & Scholarly Contribution: Are the research problem, scholarly gap, objectives, originality, novelty, and intended theoretical, empirical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, economic, policy, or practical contributions clearly articulated and academically defensible?

3. Literature & Conceptual Foundation: Is the relevant literature appropriately selected, sufficiently current where necessary, critically examined, and logically integrated? Does the manuscript establish an adequate theoretical or conceptual foundation rather than merely summarize previous studies?

4. Methodological or Conceptual Rigor: Is the research design, review methodology, or conceptual development approach appropriate to the stated objectives, sufficiently transparent, accurately reported, and capable of supporting the reported findings, scholarly synthesis, conceptual framework, interpretation, and conclusions?

5. Research Integrity: Are there credible concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading manipulation, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of research or publication ethics?

6. Analysis, Discussion & Interpretation: Are the empirical results, review findings, conceptual arguments, or theoretical propositions accurately analyzed and meaningfully interpreted in relation to the manuscript's scholarly questions, existing literature, evidence, context, limitations, and intended contribution?

7. Conclusions & Implications: Are the conclusions proportionate to the reported evidence, scholarly synthesis, or conceptual reasoning? Are the theoretical, methodological, managerial, organizational, economic, financial, sustainability, governance, policy, social, or practical implications supported rather than overstated?

8. Writing & Scholarly Presentation: Is the manuscript coherent, understandable, logically structured, and written in appropriate academic Bahasa Indonesia or English? Are the tables, figures, citations, references, terminology, presentation of evidence, and scholarly arguments sufficiently accurate and consistent with AJEB's official manuscript requirements?

For a Research Paper, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows the applicable AJEB manuscript requirements and presents a coherent progression from scholarly problem identification to theoretical grounding, methodology, research evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.

Introduction: Does the manuscript establish a clearly articulated scholarly problem, relevant context, literature gap, research purpose, novelty, research questions or objectives, and intended contribution? Is the importance of the research explained convincingly?

Review of Literature: Does the manuscript critically evaluate relevant theories, concepts, and previous research? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate? Are the research model, hypotheses, or propositions justified where applicable?

Research Methodology: Does the manuscript accurately describe the actual research design, study context, population or units of analysis, sampling or case-selection procedures, data sources, instruments, measurement, analytical techniques, validity or reliability considerations, and applicable research-ethics procedures? Can the reported methodology support the findings and conclusions?

Results and Discussion: Under the AJEB Research Paper structure, this section should distinguish the reporting of empirical evidence from its scholarly interpretation. Reviewers should assess both functions according to the actual research design.

4.1 Research Results: Are the findings presented accurately, transparently, consistently, and with sufficient supporting evidence? Are quantitative, qualitative, experimental, archival, econometric, comparative, or other applicable analyses reported appropriately? Are material omissions, unsupported claims, inconsistencies, or selective reporting concerns present?

4.2 Discussion: Does the manuscript interpret the principal findings meaningfully in relation to its theoretical or conceptual foundation, previous studies, research context, and stated contribution? Are agreements, contradictions, unexpected findings, limitations, and applicable theoretical, managerial, economic, policy, organizational, or practical implications adequately discussed without merely repeating detailed numerical results?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer its research objectives, synthesize the principal findings and contribution, acknowledge relevant limitations, identify appropriate implications, and provide defensible future-research directions? Do the conclusions remain consistent with the research design and available evidence?

Evaluation Principle: Research Methodology explains how the research was conducted; Research Results reports what the evidence shows; Discussion interprets the meaning and scholarly contribution of the findings; and Conclusion communicates what the study establishes. Reviewers should evaluate scientific adequacy rather than demand unnecessary repetition or unsupported analytical procedures.

For a Literature Review Paper, reviewers should evaluate the transparency and appropriateness of the declared review approach, adequacy and reliability of the literature base, rigor of the synthesis, scholarly significance of the interpretation, and originality and usefulness of the contribution.

Introduction: Does the review identify a meaningful scholarly problem, literature gap, review objective, and justified rationale for undertaking the synthesis? Is the intended contribution sufficiently clear?

Review Methodology: Is the actual review design identified accurately and described transparently? Are the literature sources, database searches, search terms, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, selection process, duplicate handling, analytical techniques, and synthesis approach reported where applicable to the design genuinely conducted?

Review Findings / Literature Synthesis: Does the manuscript move beyond descriptive listing or sequential publication summaries to identify meaningful themes, concepts, theoretical perspectives, evidence patterns, scholarly disagreements, methodological developments, unresolved problems, or research gaps? Are the sources appropriate and traceable?

Discussion: Does the review interpret its synthesis at a substantive scholarly level? Does it explain what the accumulated evidence establishes, how the findings extend or challenge existing knowledge, which limitations or disagreements remain, and what theoretical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, economic, institutional, policy, or practical implications can legitimately be drawn?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer the review objectives, synthesize the principal insights, explain originality and scholarly contribution, acknowledge relevant limitations, and present a focused future-research agenda supported by the reviewed literature?

Review-Methodology Integrity: A manuscript should not be treated as systematic, PRISMA-based, scoping, bibliometric, meta-analytical, database-search-based, or another specialized review simply because the corresponding label appears in the manuscript. Reviewers should determine whether the actual methods, evidence, procedures, and documentation substantiate the claimed design.

Bibliometric and Mapping-Based Reviews: Bibliometric mapping, citation-network analysis, co-word analysis, descriptive publication trends, or visualizations alone do not establish an adequate Literature Review Paper contribution. Such techniques should support meaningful theoretical, conceptual, methodological, substantive, or literature-based synthesis and scholarly interpretation.

For a Conceptual Paper, reviewers should evaluate conceptual originality, theoretical coherence, quality and logic of argumentation, integration of relevant scholarly literature, development of conceptual frameworks or propositions where applicable, and the manuscript's potential contribution to theory, research, policy, or practice.

Scholarly Problem & Rationale: Does the manuscript identify a meaningful conceptual or theoretical problem and explain why additional conceptual development is warranted? Is the significance of the proposed contribution sufficiently established?

Literature & Theoretical Foundation: Is the conceptual argument grounded in relevant and credible academic literature? Does the manuscript critically engage with existing theories, concepts, assumptions, and scholarly debates rather than presenting unsupported assertions?

Conceptual Development: Are the reasoning, theoretical relationships, propositions, or proposed frameworks coherent, logically derived, clearly explained, and consistent with relevant scholarship? Are conceptual assumptions made explicit where necessary?

Originality & Contribution: Does the manuscript extend, refine, integrate, challenge, or clarify existing scholarly understanding? Is the contribution sufficiently distinguishable from existing conceptual models or theoretical arguments?

Implications & Limitations: Are theoretical, conceptual, methodological, research, managerial, policy, or practical implications logically supported? Does the manuscript acknowledge relevant limitations and explain how the conceptual contribution may inform further scholarship?

Conceptual Integrity: Reviewers should distinguish conceptual propositions and theoretical arguments from empirically established findings. Authors must not present unsupported conceptual claims as verified empirical results or claim procedures, analyses, or validation activities that were not actually undertaken.

A high-quality review should distinguish major scholarly concerns from minor corrections, explain why each significant issue matters, and provide clear, constructive, sufficiently specific, and actionable recommendations when revision is feasible.

Reviewer comments must focus on the manuscript, evidence, methodology, reasoning, scholarly interpretation, and contribution rather than the personal characteristics of the authors. Criticism should be professional, respectful, proportionate, and supported by academic reasoning.

Personal remarks, insulting or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, unjustified methodological demands, and requests unrelated to scholarly evaluation are inappropriate. Reviewers should evaluate methods actually used rather than automatically require a particular statistical procedure, software package, theoretical model, or review protocol when another defensible approach adequately addresses the research objective.

A clear reviewer report may be organized as Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation.

Overall Assessment: Briefly summarize the manuscript's scholarly contribution, principal strengths, significant limitations, and overall academic quality.

Major Comments: Identify substantive scientific, methodological, theoretical, conceptual, evidentiary, analytical, ethical, interpretive, or contribution-related concerns. Explain the significance of each concern and what revision or clarification would be necessary where correction is feasible.

Minor Comments: Identify issues concerning clarity, language, paragraph organization, terminology, citation formatting, reference presentation, tables, figures, or other matters that do not materially change the scientific assessment.

Recommendation: Provide a reasoned editorial recommendation consistent with the review evidence and the manuscript's scholarly condition.

Depending on the options available in OJS, AJEB reviewer recommendations may include:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Decline Submission

Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their evidence-based assessment and provide a substantive explanation supporting it. Recommendations should remain proportionate to the significance and correctability of the identified concerns.

Editorial Decision Authority: Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial outcome through simple voting. The Editor-in-Chief, responsible academic editor, or another authorized academic editor retains responsibility for the editorial decision after considering reviewer reports, manuscript revisions, author responses, research-integrity issues, scholarly contribution, and applicable AJEB policies.

Where reviewer reports materially disagree, the responsible academic editor may evaluate the reasons for disagreement, seek clarification, consult an additional qualified specialist, or obtain another independent review where academically necessary. Reviewer disagreement does not automatically require rejection or acceptance.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading data manipulation, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misleading methodological claims, unethical research practices, or other serious integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the responsible academic editor.

Reviewers should describe relevant concerns, supporting evidence, and potential scholarly significance without independently investigating authors, contacting institutions, communicating directly with authors, or making unsupported allegations. The AJEB Editorial Office and responsible academic editors determine the appropriate follow-up under the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Citations and references should be evaluated for relevance, accuracy, credibility, traceability, and their relationship to the manuscript's scholarly claims. AJEB follows APA Style, 7th edition. Reviewers may identify materially inaccurate, unverifiable, misleading, or inappropriate references and explain how these affect scholarly interpretation or research integrity.

Reviewers may recommend genuinely relevant sources when there is a clear academic justification, but must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's own publications, AJEB publications, a preferred journal, colleague, research group, or other works primarily to increase citation counts.

Authors may be asked to provide revised manuscripts accompanied by point-by-point responses to reviewer and editorial comments. Reviewers should assess whether the responses correspond to actual revisions, whether supporting evidence is adequate, and whether the remaining scientific concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.

Revision-Round Principle: When evaluating revised manuscripts, reviewers should focus primarily on whether previously identified substantive concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Major new requirements should not ordinarily be introduced unless the revision creates a new material issue, new evidence reveals a previously unidentified concern, or a significant scientific or research-integrity issue was reasonably missed during an earlier evaluation.

Reviewers should distinguish unresolved scientific or integrity issues from minor editorial matters that can appropriately be addressed through copyediting, proofreading, formatting, or production after final academic acceptance. Scientific-editorial decisions must remain independent of administrative and publication-support functions.

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

Reviewers should not attempt to discover author identities through document metadata, online searches, correspondence, or other unauthorized means. If an author's identity becomes apparent through manuscript content or other circumstances, the reviewer should continue to protect confidentiality and inform the responsible editor where the identification creates a relevant conflict of interest.

Where review files are uploaded through OJS, reviewers should inspect document properties and remove personally identifying metadata where reasonably possible. Reviewer identities and manuscript-specific review assignments must remain confidential unless disclosure is expressly authorized under applicable journal procedures.

Reviewers should respond to review invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe specified by the AJEB editorial system or communicated by the responsible academic editor. Timely, carefully considered reviewer participation supports fair editorial administration and responsible scholarly evaluation.

If a reviewer requires additional time, encounters a conflict of interest, determines that the manuscript falls outside their expertise, or becomes unable to complete the review, the Editorial Office should be informed promptly so that an appropriate extension, replacement, or other editorial arrangement can be considered.

Researchers, academics, and qualified professionals with relevant scholarly or methodological expertise may register through the AJEB Online Journal System and indicate their willingness to conduct peer review. Prospective reviewers should provide accurate information concerning institutional affiliation, scholarly specialization, research interests, methodological competence, and relevant academic or professional experience.

Registration does not automatically confer public Reviewer Team membership, an active reviewing appointment, or a guaranteed invitation. Reviewer selection depends on manuscript relevance, expertise, independence, availability, review quality, applicable journal requirements, and conflicts-of-interest considerations.

AJEB recognizes independent peer reviewing as an important form of scholarly service. Reviewers contribute their time, specialized knowledge, critical judgment, methodological competence, and professional responsibility to support the accuracy, credibility, integrity, and scholarly quality of published research.

Reviewer names may be acknowledged in the journal's public Reviewer Team directory where appropriate and consistent with journal practice. Such recognition must respect reviewer confidentiality, applicable consent requirements, and the integrity of the double-anonymous peer-review process. Individual manuscript-review assignments remain confidential.

Where administratively available, AJEB may provide appropriate acknowledgement or documentation of completed peer-review service. Recognition of scholarly reviewing remains separate from editorial decision-making and does not provide any preference or advantage for manuscripts submitted by reviewers.

Public listing or reviewer service does not establish an employment relationship with AJEB, constitute membership in the Editorial Team, imply responsibility for every manuscript published by the journal, or guarantee manuscript acceptance, preferential editorial treatment, favorable reviewer selection, or other academic editorial advantages.

The current AJEB reviewer framework is applied in conjunction with the journal's Aims & Scope, accepted manuscript types, official manuscript requirements, editorial-independence principles, research-integrity standards, and publication ethics. Review assignments should reflect the expertise required to evaluate each manuscript's actual scholarly contribution.

Legitimate updates to the Aims & Scope, reviewer guidance, manuscript templates, reviewer directory, review forms, editorial procedures, or reviewer appointments do not retrospectively invalidate valid historical peer-review records, completed editorial decisions, or other established scholarly records. Updated requirements should be applied consistently with applicable journal policies and valid existing editorial commitments.

Editorial & Reviewer Support: Questions about reviewer invitations, OJS access, review deadlines, reviewer registration, conflicts of interest, review assignments, and administrative aspects of peer review may be directed to the AJEB Editorial Office through its official communication channels.

Primary Email: editor@advancesinresearch.id

Alternative Email: advancesresearch@gmail.com

Administrative WhatsApp: +62 821 9454 8786. Administrative messaging does not replace confidential OJS peer-review records, formal reviewer reports, or official academic editorial decisions.

AJEB values the expertise, independence, confidentiality, ethical conduct, methodological judgment, scholarly rigor, constructive criticism, and professional responsibility of its peer reviewers. Responsible reviewer participation strengthens the credibility of editorial evaluation, supports meaningful manuscript improvement, and contributes to the integrity of the scholarly record.

The Editorial Office appreciates reviewers who contribute their time, experience, and independent scholarly judgment to the journal's double-anonymous peer-review process.