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 20% 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 or Bahasa Indonesia 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 the field of community services regarding Accounting Education for Sustainable Development, Digital Accounting and Financial Technology for Community Empowerment, Training, Assistance, and Capacity Building in Accounting Practices, Sustainability-Oriented Business and Financial Models, Community Empowerment and Financial Inclusion, Appropriate Digital Technology and Accounting System Design, Governance, Accountability, and Public Value Creation, and Border Regions and Less Developed Areas.

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 Accounting Education for Sustainable Development, Digital Accounting and Financial Technology for Community Empowerment, Training, Assistance, and Capacity Building in Accounting Practices, Sustainability-Oriented Business and Financial Models, Community Empowerment and Financial Inclusion, Appropriate Digital Technology and Accounting System Design, Governance, Accountability, and Public Value Creation, and Border Regions and Less Developed Area.

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.

Competing Interest

As a reviewer, you are expected to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. Sound like an intimidating amount of responsibility? We’re here to help.

In this guide, we’ll go over the basics of identifying and declaring competing interests. This is one of the most important ways to promote ethical peer review.

Related guide
Ethics for Peer Reviewers

What Is a Competing Interest?

What are competing interests, and why should you care about them?

Competing interests can be many things. Here’s the official definition that PLOS uses:

A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to PLOS.

Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person.

Competing interests matter because they can introduce perceived or actual bias in the submission or peer review process. The appearance of bias during the evaluation can compromise a study down the line – even if the study is perfectly valid.

Confused about competing interests? You’re not alone. Below we’ll walk you through how to check for competing interests that could reasonably be perceived as interfering with your peer review of the manuscript.

Checking for competing interests: How, when, and where

When you are invited to review a manuscript, check for any competing interests that may exist between you and the authors.

Here are some questions to ask yourself: If you answer yes to any of these questions you should declare them as a competing interest to the journal before you accept the invitation to review.

Financial conflicts of interest:

Could you profit or be negatively impacted financially by the submitted research?

Personal conflicts of interest:

Do you have a personal relationship with the authors?
Are you and the authors rivals or competitors?

Professional conflicts of interest:

Have you recently worked at the same institution or organization as the authors?
Have you or are you currently collaborating with the authors?
Have you published with the authors during the last 5 years?
Do you or have you held grants with the authors?

If you agree to review a manuscript, check for competing interests again once you have access to all of the submission files.

Where in the submission should you look for competing interests? Here are some possible things to check:

  • Author list: Do you know any of the authors?
  • Funding information: Do you now, or have you recently held grants with any of the authors?
  • Acknowledgments: Are you thanked in the acknowledgments?

Declaring competing interests

If one of these situations applies to you, or if you think you have a competing interest that’s not listed here, get in touch with the journal right away. Depending on the situation, the journal editors may ask you to review anyway, or decide to find a different reviewer.

If the journal editors decide to keep you as a reviewer on the manuscript, they will probably ask you to declare the competing interest in your reviewer comments. This will make your position transparent.

Again, remember that competing interests are not necessarily bad. It’s okay to have them. The important thing is that they are declared. Even if you are confident that your review is unbiased, declaring a potential competing interest ensures the editor understands the relationships in play, and can account for them when evaluating reviewer feedback to reach a decision.

Case Studies

Want to read about real-life scenarios involving competing interests for reviewers? These case studies from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) provide some interesting (and complicated) examples of tricky situations. We hope you don’t find yourself in a similar situation, but if you do, remember to get in touch with the journal for advice.

Competing interests case study #1 | Reviewer recommends rejection, then submits a manuscript to the same journal on the same topic.

Competing interests case study #2| Reviewer suggests rejecting a manuscript and turns out to be affiliated with a competing institution, which was not disclosed during the review process.

Competing interests case study #3 | Reviewer recommends rejection and turns out to have a patent on a method challenged by the submitted research, which was not disclosed during the review process.