Peer Review
Smartification in Accounting, Economics, and Financial Management uses a rigorous double-blind anonymous peer-review process designed to support fairness, scholarly quality, confidentiality, and independent academic evaluation.
After a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the submission complies with the journal's basic requirements. This preliminary screening may consider the manuscript's relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, originality, scientific quality, methodological adequacy, presentation, ethical compliance, formatting, completeness of required documentation, and overall suitability for peer review.
Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet minimum scholarly standards, contain serious ethical concerns, or are otherwise unsuitable for publication may be rejected during the initial editorial screening without being sent for external review.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial assessment are normally assigned to two or three independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. The journal applies a double-blind procedure, meaning that reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors and authors are not informed of the identities of reviewers. Authors should therefore prepare manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous evaluation.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript with respect to its originality, theoretical contribution, research design, methodological rigor, validity of analysis, interpretation of findings, engagement with relevant literature, organization, clarity, relevance, ethical considerations, and overall contribution to the discipline.
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. When revision is requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers' and editors' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response to the issues raised. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
In cases where reviewers provide substantially conflicting evaluations, an additional reviewer may be invited or the editor may undertake further assessment before reaching a decision. The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's authorized editorial decision-maker and is based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, reviewers' evaluations, authors' responses to revision requests, and compliance with journal policies.
The journal considers peer-review reports confidential. Reviewers are expected not to disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in manuscripts under review. Reviewers should also declare circumstances that may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their independence in evaluating a manuscript.
Authors should likewise respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and should not attempt to identify, contact, or improperly influence anonymous reviewers.
Possible editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript has satisfied the journal's scientific, editorial, and ethical requirements.
The journal seeks to ensure that peer review is constructive and academically rigorous. Reviewer comments should focus on improving the scientific quality and clarity of manuscripts and should be expressed professionally and respectfully.
