Reviewer Guideline

Guidelines for Reviewers
Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
In order to provide constructive criticism and honest input to the author of the submitted article, peer reviewers must first read and evaluate papers in their field of expertise. Peer reviewers analyse the article's strengths and flaws, how to improve the paper's strength and quality, and evaluate the relevancy and authenticity of the text.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Is the requested article to be examined in accordance with your expertise? Please contact the editor as soon as possible if you get a script that addresses themes outside of your area of expertise. Please suggest a different reviewer.
    Do you have time to go over this paper? Within four weeks, the evaluation procedure must be finished. If you agree and need more time, please contact the editor as soon as possible, or propose another reviewer.
  • Is there any possibility of a conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest won't eliminate you as a reviewer; nevertheless, before reviewing, you must declare all conflicts of interest to the editor. Please contact the editorial office if you have any queries concerning potential conflicts of interest.

Review Process
Please keep the following in mind while you read the article:

  • Title: Is it clearly illustrative of the article?
  • Abstract: Does it align to the article's content?
  • Introduction: does it describe the correctness of the author's submissions and properly define the problem under consideration? Typically, the introduction should summarise the context of the relevant study and explain the research findings or other findings given for debate, if any. The experiments, assumptions, and methodologies should be explained in this study.

Content of the Article
Is there any plagiarism in this article area that exceeds 25% in order to assess its originality and appropriateness for the journal? A quick literature search might use tools like Scopus to discover if there are any parallels from other regions of the world.

  • if the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
  • Is the article somewhat novel, in depth, and intriguing enough for publication?
  • Is there any contribution for knowledge development?
  • does the article fulfill the journal's standards?
  • Scope - Is the article consistent with the journal's aims and scope?

Method
Comprehensive and perfect:

  • Is the author's description of data collection accurate?
  • Is the theoretical foundation or reference employed suitable for this study?
  • Is the exposure design appropriate for answering the question?
  • Is there enough information for you to replicate the research?
  • Is the following process identified in the article?
  • Are there any new techniques? Is there a new way described in detail by the author?
  • Is there any suitable sampling?
  • Have the tools and materials utilised been sufficiently described? And, in discussing the measurement, does the article expose what sort of data is recorded?

Results:
The author must address the findings of his or her study in this section. It should be well-organized and in a logical order. You have to determine if the right analysis was performed, as well as the usage of statistical techniques. If you have superior statistical techniques to employ in this study, please let us know, and the interpretation does not need to be provided in this part.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • Are claims made in this section confirmed by fair and reasonable results?
  • Does the author compare the research findings to earlier ones?
  • Do the findings of the research described in the article contradict earlier theories?
  • Does the conclusion describe how future scientific study may be improved?

Tables and Pictures:
Is it compatible with the given explanation by displaying data that is simple to comprehend and understand for the readers?

Writing Styles

  • Authors must be critical, particularly of the literature comprehensive review of topics pertinent to the subject of research.
  • Reviews should be narrowly focused on a specific subject.
  • All exposes should be in English and written with good grammar.
  • Simple for anyone to understand
  • It was interesting to read.

Things that need to be considered:

  • Perspective, a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in Innovative Accounting Practices, Technological Advancements in Accounting, Sustainable and Ethical Accounting, Accounting Education and Training, Accounting Standards and Regulations, Data Analytics and Big Data in Accounting, Behavioral and Experimental Accounting, Global and International Accounting

Originality Research

  • The original data and testing, it must deliver data that gives a fresh method to improving systems, processes, and the precision of the instruments utilised.
  • It should clarify the feasibility, efficacy, and implementation of the study results through research policy and observational analysis. It is not restricted to the subject of
  • Innovative Accounting Practices, Technological Advancements in Accounting, Sustainable and Ethical Accounting, Accounting Education and Training, Accounting Standards and Regulations, Data Analytics and Big Data in Accounting, Behavioral and Experimental Accounting, Global and International Accounting.
  • In Practice (case study), The paper should explain the situation regarding the future challenges in Innovative Accounting Practices, Technological Advancements in Accounting, Sustainable and Ethical Accounting, Accounting Education and Training, Accounting Standards and Regulations, Data Analytics and Big Data in Accounting, Behavioral and Experimental Accounting, Global and International Accounting within its conclusions, and things which can be learned.

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Reviews
  • Insight Technology (Product Review)

Final Review

  • All reviewer-submitted review results are kept strictly secret.
  • Please notify the editor if you like to discuss the article with a colleague.
  • Do not make direct contact with the author.
  • Ethical concerns:

- Plagiarism: If you feel that the article contains significant amounts of plagiarism from other authors, please notify the editor.
- Fraud: It is difficult to spot a fraud category, but if you believe the findings in the article are false, please notify the editor.

Finish "The Review" by the deadline set by the editorial office. Your suggestion for the article will be taken into account when the editor makes a final choice, and your candid criticism is greatly appreciated.

When leaving a remark, please indicate which sections are solely for the editor and which can be returned to the author.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office if you have any inquiries or face any issues.