Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the scholarly quality, integrity, and relevance of iRASD Journal of Finance (iRASD-JOF). The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review and editorial decision-making process. Reviewers are therefore expected to assess manuscripts objectively, fairly, confidentially, and only within the scope of their expertise.

Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation to review only if they have the subject expertise required to evaluate the manuscript properly, can provide an unbiased assessment, and are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe. If a reviewer lacks sufficient expertise, foresees delay, or identifies a conflict of interest or any circumstance that may compromise impartial judgment, the reviewer should decline the invitation promptly or consult the editor for guidance.

Because iRASD-JOF follows a double-blind peer-review process, reviewers should also avoid attempting to identify the author or authors of the manuscript. If a reviewer believes that they know the identity of the author or authors and that this may affect their impartiality, the matter should be disclosed to the editor before the review proceeds.

Confidentiality and Responsible Use of Manuscripts

All manuscripts and related correspondence received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, distribute, or otherwise disclose unpublished material without prior permission from the editor. Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage, nor to disadvantage or discredit others.

Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript while it is under review. In keeping with the double-blind review process, reviewers should also avoid including comments that may reveal their own identity to the authors.

If a reviewer wishes to involve a junior colleague or collaborator in the review for training purposes, prior editorial permission should be obtained, and any such contribution should be disclosed to the journal. Confidentiality and competing-interest requirements apply equally to all individuals involved in the review.

Competing Interests and Bias

Reviewers should decline invitations in cases involving actual, potential, or perceived competing interests arising from personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or financial relationships with the authors or affiliated institutions. If there is uncertainty, reviewers should disclose the matter to the editor before accepting the assignment.

Reviews should not be influenced by the nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religious or political beliefs, career stage, or other personal characteristics of the authors, nor by commercial considerations.

General Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • review the manuscript objectively and provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments
  • evaluate the manuscript’s originality, scholarly contribution, clarity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope
  • identify important strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and areas requiring clarification or revision
  • maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review process, except as permitted by the journal
  • respect the double-blind review process by avoiding attempts to discover author identity and by avoiding self-identifying remarks in comments to authors
  • alert the editor promptly if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed competing interests, or other possible misconduct
  • avoid hostile, inflammatory, derogatory, or personal remarks in review reports

Review Criteria

Reviewers are invited to comment on the following, where relevant:

  • relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope
  • originality and significance of the contribution
  • clarity and coherence of the title, abstract, keywords, and main argument
  • adequacy and rigor of the theoretical framework, methods, analysis, and interpretation
  • appropriateness of statistical, analytical, or other research procedures
  • ethical compliance, including approvals, consent, and disclosure of competing interests where applicable
  • clarity, relevance, and presentation of tables, figures, and supplementary materials
  • consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions
  • adequacy, relevance, and currency of the cited literature
  • major departures from the journal’s author guidelines, including consistency of in-text citations and references with the latest APA style
  • overall presentation, intelligibility, and scholarly clarity of the manuscript

Comments for the Authors

Comments to authors should be constructive, professional, respectful, and specific. Reviewers should explain the basis of their observations and recommendations, identify the manuscript’s main strengths and weaknesses, and provide practical guidance for improvement. Wherever possible, comments should refer clearly to relevant sections of the manuscript.

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit manuscripts, but they may note serious language, structure, citation, or presentation problems that materially affect scholarly communication. Reviewers should take care not to include statements in comments to authors that may directly or indirectly reveal their identity.

Comments for the Editor

Confidential comments to the editor should be limited to matters relevant to editorial decision-making that should not be shared directly with the authors, such as competing interests, ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, major limitations affecting reliability, or other confidential issues. General evaluative comments intended to help authors improve the manuscript should ordinarily be included in the comments to authors.

If a reviewer suspects that the double-blind process may have been compromised, including cases in which author identity appears known or reviewer anonymity may be at risk, this should be reported confidentially to the editor.

References and Citation Conduct

Reviewers should assess whether the references are sufficient, relevant, and appropriate to the manuscript. Requests to add citations should be made only where academically justified. Reviewers should not recommend citation of their own work unless it is genuinely necessary and directly relevant to the manuscript. Excessive or self-serving citation requests are not appropriate.

Possible Misconduct

If reviewers identify possible research or publication misconduct, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research conduct, compromised peer review, or undisclosed competing interests, they should report these concerns to the editor with as much detail as possible. Reviewers should not investigate such matters independently or contact the authors directly.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe requested by the journal. If additional time is needed, the reviewer should inform the editor as soon as possible. Prompt communication helps support a fair and efficient double-blind peer-review process.