Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is central to ensuring the academic quality, credibility, and integrity of the Review of Accounting Research (RAR). This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and procedural standards for reviewers engaged in the journal’s double-blind peer review process.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

Maintaining high scholarly standards in accounting, auditing, taxation, and related fields
Improving the clarity, rigor, and theoretical contribution of submitted manuscripts
Supporting fair, unbiased, and timely editorial decisions
Providing constructive feedback to strengthen both academic and practical relevance

The primary goal of peer review is to improve manuscript quality, regardless of publication outcome.

2. Review Model

RAR operates a double-blind peer review system:

Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept only if:

The manuscript aligns with their expertise (e.g., financial accounting, auditing, taxation, ESG reporting, corporate disclosure)
They can complete the review within the required timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)
No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

Recent collaboration with the author(s)
Institutional affiliation with the author(s)
Personal, financial, or professional relationships that may influence objectivity

If any conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

Treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents
Not share or discuss manuscript content with others
Not use manuscript content for personal or academic purposes
Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms
Delete all manuscript files after completing the review process

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, fair, and constructive evaluations
Avoid personal, offensive, or discriminatory remarks
Identify ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or manipulation
Report any suspected research misconduct to the editor

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must NOT:

Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external systems
Use AI-generated content to write review reports

Reviewers MAY:

Rely on their academic expertise and professional judgment
Use citation tools for reference verification without sharing manuscript content

All reviews must be fully human-generated.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

7.1 Relevance and Scope

Is the manuscript relevant to accounting, auditing, taxation, or related disciplines?
Does it align with the scope of RAR?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

Does the study provide new insights into accounting theory or practice?
Are financial, regulatory, or policy implications clearly stated?

7.3 Literature and Theory

Is the literature review current, relevant, and comprehensive?
Is the theoretical or conceptual framework well-developed?

7.4 Methodology

Is the research design appropriate and clearly justified?
Are data sources, sampling, and analytical methods transparent and robust?
Is the study replicable and methodologically sound?

7.5 Results and Discussion

Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?
Do results contribute to accounting theory, practice, or regulation?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

Are conclusions supported by evidence?
Are implications for accounting practice, policy, or governance meaningful and actionable?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written?
Are tables, figures, and disclosures appropriate and informative?

8. Structure of the Review Report

A. Summary

Brief overview of the manuscript and its main contribution

B. Major Comments

Key issues related to theory, methodology, analysis, or contribution

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions on clarity, formatting, language, or presentation

All feedback should be specific, constructive, and actionable.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should select one of the following:

Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject

Recommendations must align with the written comments.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews must be:

Constructive and respectful
Objective and evidence-based
Focused on improving the manuscript
Supportive even when recommending rejection

11. Timeliness