Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose

The "Governance Accounting Archive Review" (GAAR) is committed to maintaining a rigorous and fair peer-review process that ensures the publication of high-quality, original, and impactful research in the field of governance accounting. This policy outlines the expectations for both reviewers and authors involved in the peer-review process.

2. Review Process

• All manuscripts submitted to GAAR undergo a double-blind peer-review process. This means that the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the review process.

• At least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript are selected for each submission.

• Reviewers are asked to provide a confidential written evaluation of the manuscript, addressing the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research question
  • Soundness of the theoretical framework and methodology
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity and conciseness of writing
  • Overall contribution to the field of governance accounting

• Reviewers are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback to the authors on how to improve their manuscript.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Reviewers should have expertise in the relevant subject area and be familiar with the publication standards of GAAR.
• Reviewers should treat all manuscripts with confidentiality and avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers should provide objective and constructive feedback to the authors.
• Reviewers should complete their reviews in a timely manner.

4. Author Responsibilities

• Authors should ensure that their manuscripts are well-written, original, and meet the submission guidelines of GAAR.
• Authors should be responsive to reviewer feedback and make appropriate revisions to their manuscripts.
• Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

5. Editorial Decision

• The final decision on whether or not to accept a manuscript for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Associate Editors and the reviewers.
• The Editor-in-Chief will provide the authors with a decision letter that includes the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improvement.