For Reviewer

 
For Reviewers
Peer-Review Guidelines & Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality, methodological rigor, research integrity, and credibility of Advances in Taxation Research (ATR).

ATR invites qualified academics, researchers, and professionals with relevant expertise in taxation, accounting, auditing, fiscal policy, governance, and related fields to contribute to its independent scholarly peer-review process.

 
 
Peer Review Model

ATR applies a double-blind peer-review process. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter, theoretical framework, methodology, or disciplinary context.

Purpose of Peer Review: Peer review provides independent scholarly evaluation, identifies strengths and weaknesses in submitted work, supports authors in improving their manuscripts, and assists academic editors in making informed editorial decisions.
 
Peer Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team for relevance to ATR's Aims & Scope, manuscript readiness, originality, research integrity, methodological suitability, and compliance with journal requirements.

Submission  →  Editorial Screening  →  Reviewer Assignment  →  Independent Peer Review  →  Editorial Evaluation  →  Author Revision, if required  →  Further Evaluation  →  Final Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final decisions concerning acceptance, revision, further review, or rejection remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or authorized academic editor.

 
Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively, independently, and professionally.
  • Assess originality, relevance, theoretical contribution, methodological quality, analytical rigor, clarity, and scholarly significance.
  • Provide clear, constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments.
  • Identify important methodological, conceptual, analytical, reporting, or ethical concerns.
  • Assess whether conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence presented.
  • Identify relevant omitted literature where appropriate without coercive or excessive citation requests.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review process.
  • Disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Complete the review within the agreed period or promptly notify the editor if additional time is required.
  • Avoid discriminatory, insulting, hostile, or personally directed comments.
 
Suggested Areas for Evaluation
Originality & Contribution
Assess whether the manuscript provides a meaningful, clearly articulated, and relevant scholarly contribution.
Theory & Literature
Evaluate the theoretical foundation, literature synthesis, research gap, and positioning within relevant scholarship.
Methodology
Assess research design, sampling, measurement, data quality, analytical methods, validity, reliability, and reproducibility where applicable.
Results & Analysis
Evaluate whether results are clearly presented, appropriately analyzed, and supported by the data and analytical procedures.
Discussion & Implications
Assess whether findings are appropriately interpreted and connected with theory, prior research, policy, practice, taxation, accounting, or auditing where relevant.
Research Integrity
Consider ethical compliance, originality, citation integrity, transparency, data concerns, and other publication-integrity issues.
 
Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content without authorization from the journal.

Supplementary files, review reports, editorial correspondence, author responses, reviewer identities, and other non-public information associated with the review process must also remain confidential.

 
Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an assignment when financial, professional, institutional, personal, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or other relationships could reasonably affect or appear to affect their impartiality.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the assignment, the reviewer should promptly inform the responsible editor and allow the journal to determine whether reassignment is necessary.

 
Generative AI & External Tools in Peer Review
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, supplementary files, review reports, confidential editorial correspondence, or other non-public materials to publicly accessible Generative AI systems or external services where confidentiality, data retention, intellectual property, or information security cannot be assured.

Peer review requires independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the originality, accuracy, fairness, evidence, and integrity of all comments and recommendations submitted to ATR.
 
Reporting Ethical or Integrity Concerns

Reviewers who identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, citation manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, or other serious integrity concerns should report the matter confidentially to the responsible editor.

Reviewers should describe the concern and provide relevant supporting information where reasonably available. They should not independently contact the authors or conduct an external investigation.

 
Reviewer Recommendations

Depending on the OJS workflow and editorial stage, reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following actions:

Accept Submission — The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision required.
Revisions Required — Specific revisions are required and may normally be evaluated by the editor.
Resubmit for Review — Substantial revision is required and further external review may be appropriate.
Decline Submission — Significant scholarly, methodological, ethical, scope, or other limitations do not support publication in its current form.

Reviewer recommendations assist the academic editor but do not determine the final editorial decision.

 
How to Become a Reviewer

Researchers and academics who wish to be considered as ATR reviewers may create an account through the journal's OJS registration system.

During registration, applicants should indicate their willingness to receive review requests and provide accurate reviewing interests or areas of expertise.

Reviewer Selection
Registration does not automatically guarantee reviewer appointment. Invitations are issued according to subject expertise, research experience, manuscript requirements, availability, independence, potential conflicts of interest, and editorial needs.
REGISTER AS REVIEWER →
 
Reviewer Recognition

Peer review is an independent scholarly service supporting research quality and publication integrity. Accepting a review assignment does not constitute employment by ATR.

Where appropriate and consistent with confidentiality requirements, ATR may acknowledge reviewer contributions through reviewer listings, certificates, editorial records, or other forms of scholarly recognition.

 
Reviewer Contact
ATR Editorial Office
For questions concerning reviewer registration, review assignments, deadlines, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or technical difficulties:
ATR values reviewers who provide independent, constructive, confidential, rigorous, and respectful scholarly evaluation in support of responsible academic publishing.