The peer-review process of Advances in Taxation Research (ATR) is supported by scholarly expertise relevant to taxation, tax policy, fiscal systems, tax administration, tax compliance, taxpayer behavior, tax-related accounting and reporting, auditing, assurance, fiscal accountability, governance, sustainability-related taxation, economics, information systems, behavioral research, and research methodology within the journal's stated Aims & Scope.
Scope and Expertise Principle: ATR is a taxation-centered journal. All six core research areas recognized in the current ATR Aims & Scope have equal standing in scholarly scope assessment. Reviewers are selected according to each manuscript's substantive taxation or fiscal research contribution, subject expertise, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological requirements, independence, and availability. The expertise labels in the directory do not establish a hierarchy among research fields.
Under the current framework, ATR accepts only Research Papers and Literature Review Papers for new submissions. Manuscripts proceeding to external assessment normally undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Inclusion in this public directory does not establish an assignment to any particular manuscript or guarantee a review invitation.
ATR reviewer selection is driven by the manuscript's principal taxation or fiscal research contribution and the expertise required to evaluate its theoretical or conceptual foundation, evidence, research design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or literature-review approach. A substantive contribution to any one recognized ATR research area is sufficient for scholarly scope consideration.
Reviewers are selected according to subject relevance, taxation-related expertise where required, theoretical or conceptual competence, methodological capability, independence, availability, and potential financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. Reviewers with expertise in adjacent disciplines may evaluate relevant aspects of a manuscript when the research demonstrates substantive taxation or fiscal relevance.
Additional specialist reviewers may be invited beyond the public directory when necessary to ensure adequate coverage of taxation-related subject matter, interdisciplinary research questions, specialized methods, or complex analytical requirements. The responsible academic editor documents reviewer assignments and remains accountable for editorial oversight and the final scientific-editorial assessment within their assigned authority.
Reviewers are expected to provide impartial, evidence-based, confidential, and professionally responsible scholarly assessments. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible academic editor or Editor-in-Chief retains authority for scientific-editorial decisions in accordance with ATR policies.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly, seek to identify anonymized authors, delegate review responsibilities without authorization, misuse unpublished findings, request coercive citations, or disclose confidential manuscript materials. They must report relevant professional, personal, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, or competitive conflicts of interest and decline an assignment when independence cannot be maintained.
Editors who also appear in the reviewer directory must not review, manage, or decide their own manuscripts or manuscripts for which a material conflict of interest exists. Conflicted submissions must be reassigned to another qualified and sufficiently independent academic editor. The same independence and confidentiality requirements apply to reviewers who hold editorial roles in other journals.
Confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished data, author information, supplementary files, review reports, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded into publicly accessible generative-AI tools or other external systems where confidentiality, appropriate authorization, and adequate data protection cannot be assured.
Reviewer reports should be objective, constructive, specific, sufficiently evidenced, and respectful. They should distinguish substantive scientific, theoretical, methodological, analytical, ethical, or interpretive concerns from minor language, formatting, presentation, or technical issues.
Reviews should assess the manuscript's alignment with ATR's taxation-centered Aims & Scope, originality, contribution to knowledge, theoretical or conceptual foundation, appropriateness of research or review methodology, adequacy of evidence, validity of analysis or synthesis, interpretation of findings, research integrity, limitations, and relevance of conclusions or implications.
Reviews of revised manuscripts should focus on whether previously identified material concerns have been adequately addressed and whether unresolved scientific, methodological, analytical, or research-integrity issues remain. New substantial requirements should be requested only when academically necessary, appropriately justified, and proportionate to the manuscript's scholarly claims.
Researchers with appropriate taxation-related subject expertise, interdisciplinary expertise, or relevant methodological competence may register in the ATR Online Journal System and express their interest in participating in independent scholarly peer review.
Registration does not automatically confer public reviewer-directory membership or guarantee a review invitation. Responsible academic editors assess reviewer suitability according to scholarly expertise, methodological competence, independence, availability, potential conflicts of interest, and the journal's editorial requirements.
The public directory reflects the journal's supplied reviewer records and does not certify the present availability, current institutional affiliation, or active assignment status of every listed individual. Reviewer details, professional affiliations, identifiers, and directory status should be administratively verified and updated when appropriate. Legitimate directory updates must not retrospectively alter completed review records, editorial decisions, publication dates, DOI records, volume or issue assignments, or other established scholarly records.
Questions about reviewer invitations, review deadlines, manuscript access through OJS, conflict-of-interest disclosures, review assignments, or administrative support may be directed to the Managing Editor, Muslim Muslim, at advancesresearch@gmail.com. Matters requiring principal academic editorial attention may be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, Taufiq Supriadi, at editor@advancesinresearch.id.
Reviewer communication, confidential review reports, editorial recommendations, revision assessments, and formal scientific-editorial decisions should be documented through the journal's authorized editorial workflow. Administrative correspondence does not replace independent scholarly assessment or formal editorial decision-making.