Peer reviewers contribute to the scholarly quality, integrity, rigor, relevance, and credibility of Advances in Managerial Auditing Research (AMAR). 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.

AMAR welcomes qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the journal's main scholarly scope, including auditing, assurance, financial and managerial accounting, public-sector accounting and auditing, taxation, tax governance, corporate governance, internal control, risk management, fraud and forensic accounting, audit quality, accounting information systems, data analytics, sustainability reporting, environmental auditing, ESG assurance, professional ethics, and related scholarly developments.

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.

AMAR 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, and/or methodological expertise.

Authors submit 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 access to identifying information, or circumvent the confidentiality of the review process.

The normal scientific-editorial pathway is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision. Where a manuscript is accepted, it subsequently enters the applicable post-acceptance administrative, copyediting, proofreading, production, metadata-verification, and publication processes.

AMAR accepts two manuscript types only: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper. Both types are evaluated according to their stated scholarly purpose, methodological characteristics, available evidence, and appropriate standards of academic rigor.

Research Paper: Original empirical or otherwise systematically designed research using quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, quasi-experimental, archival, econometric, longitudinal, panel-data, cross-sectional, computational, behavioral, case-based, comparative, or other defensible original-research approaches.

Literature Review Paper: A rigorous scholarly review using an explicitly identified and sufficiently transparent narrative, integrative, systematic, scoping, structured, bibliometric, meta-analytical, theory-oriented, concept-oriented, or other defensible literature-review approach that provides substantive synthesis and a meaningful contribution to scholarly understanding.

Manuscript-Type Principle: Research designs, analytical techniques, data sources, software, review methods, theoretical contributions, and conceptual contributions do not constitute separate manuscript categories. Conceptual Papers are not accepted as a separate manuscript type. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts according to the requirements appropriate to their actual research or review design.

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 the current AMAR Aims & Scope.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript falls sufficiently within their subject, theoretical, conceptual, and/or methodological expertise; that they can provide an independent, impartial, and evidence-based assessment; that no material conflict of interest exists; and that they can complete the review within the timeframe requested by the AMAR Editorial Office.

Reviewers must also be able to comply with AMAR confidentiality, reviewer-ethics, scholarly-independence, and research-integrity requirements. Where expertise is insufficient, a conflict exists, or the requested timeframe cannot reasonably be met, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the responsible editor promptly.

Reviewers are not expected to function as copyeditors. Language, formatting, 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, 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 own identities to circumvent double-anonymous review, or delegate review responsibilities to another person without authorization from the responsible academic editor. Any proposed involvement of another individual must be disclosed and approved in advance.

Relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly. 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 materials 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 review reports and recommendations.

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript makes a meaningful scholarly contribution to at least one field explicitly included in the current AMAR Aims & Scope. All recognized AMAR fields constitute the journal's main scholarly scope and have equal standing. No recognized field is classified as secondary or supplementary merely because it does not directly address auditing or assurance.

A manuscript contributing substantively to financial accounting, managerial accounting, public-sector accounting, taxation, tax policy, corporate governance, fraud and forensic accounting, risk management, accounting information systems, sustainability reporting, environmental auditing, ESG assurance, professional ethics, or another recognized AMAR field must not be considered outside scope solely because it does not introduce an additional auditing or assurance variable.

1. Scope Relevance: Does the manuscript address a substantive scholarly problem within one or more recognized AMAR fields? Is the research or review question sufficiently connected to the journal's current Aims & Scope, and is its scholarly contribution relevant to the field being investigated?

2. Originality & Scholarly Contribution: Are the research or review problem, knowledge gap, objectives, originality, novelty, and intended theoretical, empirical, conceptual, methodological, professional, institutional, governance, 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 summarizing previous studies?

4. Methodological Rigor: Is the research or review methodology appropriate to the stated objectives, sufficiently transparent, accurately reported, and capable of supporting the reported findings, synthesis, interpretation, and conclusions? Are the design, evidence sources, analytical techniques, and relevant limitations adequately explained?

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 empirical results or review findings accurately analyzed and meaningfully interpreted in relation to the research question, conceptual or theoretical foundation, prior scholarship, research context, evidence, relevant limitations, and the manuscript's intended scholarly contribution?

7. Conclusions & Implications: Are the conclusions proportionate to the reported evidence or scholarly synthesis? Are theoretical, conceptual, methodological, professional, organizational, accounting, taxation, governance, sustainability, policy, institutional, or practical implications supported by the manuscript rather than overstated?

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

For a Research Paper, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows the applicable official AMAR manuscript template and presents a coherent progression from scholarly problem identification to theoretical grounding, methodology, 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 prior research? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate, and are research models, 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, measurements, analytical techniques, model specification, validity or reliability considerations, and applicable research-ethics procedures? Can the reported methodology support the findings and conclusions?

Results and Discussion: Under the official AMAR Research Paper structure, this is the main section containing distinct scholarly functions for reporting empirical evidence and interpreting its meaning. Reviewers should evaluate both functions independently, even when presented under one principal heading.

4.1 Research Results: Are the empirical findings presented accurately, transparently, consistently, and with sufficient supporting evidence? Are quantitative, qualitative, experimental, archival, econometric, computational, comparative, or other applicable analyses reported appropriately? Are unsupported claims, material omissions, 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, methodological, accounting, auditing, taxation, governance, policy, institutional, 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 material limitations, identify relevant implications, and provide defensible future-research directions? Do conclusions remain consistent with the research design, actual evidence, and scope of inference?

Evaluation Principle: Research Methodology explains how the research was conducted; Research Results reports what the evidence shows; Discussion interprets the meaning and contribution of the findings; and Conclusion communicates what the study establishes. Reviewers should evaluate scientific adequacy rather than demand unnecessary repetition or changes that conflict with the journal's official manuscript structure.

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

Introduction: Does the review identify a meaningful scholarly problem, literature gap, research or review objective, and justified rationale for undertaking the synthesis? Is the intended scholarly 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 review design genuinely conducted?

Review Findings / Literature Synthesis: Does the manuscript move beyond descriptive listing or sequential summaries of publications to identify meaningful themes, concepts, theoretical perspectives, evidence patterns, scholarly disagreements, methodological developments, unresolved problems, or research gaps? Are the literature sources sufficiently 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, professional, governance, institutional, policy, or practical implications can legitimately be drawn?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer the review objectives, synthesize the principal insights, explain the 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 assess whether the actual methods, procedures, evidence, 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 methods should support meaningful theoretical, conceptual, methodological, substantive, or literature-based synthesis and scholarly interpretation.

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 should focus on the manuscript, evidence, methodology, reasoning, scholarly interpretation, and contribution rather than on the personal characteristics of the authors.

Personal remarks, insulting or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, unjustified methodological demands, and requests unrelated to scholarly evaluation are inappropriate. Reviewers should evaluate the suitability and limitations of methods actually used rather than automatically require a particular software package, statistical procedure, 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. Major Comments should address scientific, methodological, evidentiary, theoretical, ethical, interpretive, or contribution-related issues. Minor Comments should address presentation, clarity, terminology, citation formatting, and other corrections that do not materially change the scientific assessment.

Reviewer recommendations may be Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewers should select the recommendation most consistent with their evidence-based assessment and explain the substantive reasons supporting it. Recommendations should remain proportionate to the significance and correctability of the concerns identified.

Editorial Decision Authority: Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial outcome through simple voting. The responsible academic editor considers the manuscript, independent reviewer reports, author responses, revised submission, research-integrity matters, scholarly contribution, and applicable AMAR policies before reaching or recommending the final scientific-editorial decision.

Where reviewer reports materially disagree, the responsible academic editor may evaluate the reasons for disagreement, request clarification, consult an additional qualified specialist, or obtain another independent review when 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 the relevant concerns, supporting evidence, and their potential scholarly significance without independently investigating authors, contacting institutions, communicating directly with authors, or making unsupported allegations. The AMAR Editorial Office and responsible academic editors determine the appropriate follow-up under the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Citations should be evaluated for relevance, accuracy, credibility, and their relationship to the manuscript's scholarly claims. Reviewers may recommend genuinely relevant sources when there is a clear academic justification, but must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's publications, AMAR 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 stated responses correspond to actual revisions, whether the supporting evidence is adequate, and whether the manuscript's remaining scientific concerns have been 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 problem 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 acceptance must remain independent of administrative and publication-support functions.

Reviewers should respond to review invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe specified by the AMAR 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 AMAR Online Journal System and indicate their willingness to conduct peer review. During registration, prospective reviewers may select "Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal" and provide accurate information concerning their 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 is based on manuscript relevance, expertise, independence, availability, review quality, applicable journal requirements, and conflicts-of-interest considerations.

AMAR 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 the journal's published research.

Where administratively available, AMAR may provide reviewer acknowledgements, documentation of completed peer-review service, or other appropriate forms of professional recognition. Such recognition must respect reviewer confidentiality, applicable consent requirements, and the integrity of the double-anonymous peer-review process.

Reviewers participate voluntarily and are not employed or directly remunerated by AMAR solely by virtue of their reviewer role. Under the journal's existing reviewer-recognition arrangement, eligible reviewers who agree to assess a manuscript may receive a 10% discount on an applicable AMAR Article Processing Charge, subject to the current official APC policy and post-acceptance invoicing procedures. Any applicable discount concerns publication administration only and must not influence the independent scientific assessment of a manuscript.

Reviewer service does not establish an employment relationship with AMAR and does not provide guaranteed manuscript acceptance, preferential scholarly evaluation, expedited peer review, favorable reviewer selection, or other editorial advantages for manuscripts subsequently submitted by reviewers. Recognition remains separate from academic editorial decision-making and applicable administrative or publication-support activities.

The current AMAR reviewer framework is applied in conjunction with the journal's current Aims & Scope, accepted manuscript types, official manuscript template, editorial-independence requirements, research-integrity standards, and publication ethics. All recognized fields within the stated main scholarly scope have equal standing in reviewer assignment and assessment of subject relevance.

Legitimate changes in 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 prospectively in accordance with applicable journal policies and any valid existing editorial commitments.

Editorial & Reviewer Support: Questions concerning review invitations, OJS access, review deadlines, reviewer registration, conflicts of interest, review assignments, or administrative aspects of peer review may be directed to Muslim Muslim, Managing Editor, at advancesresearch@gmail.com.

Principal Academic Editorial Contact: Matters requiring scientific-editorial attention may be directed to Taufiq Supriadi, Editor-in-Chief, at editor@advancesinresearch.id.

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

AMAR 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 permanent 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.