Peer-Review Policy
The iRASD Journal of Finance (iRASD-JOF) follows a double-anonymous peer-review process, also known as double-blind peer review. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review and editorial decision-making process.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial office to determine whether they:
- fall within the journal’s aims and scope;
- meet the journal’s submission and ethical requirements;
- demonstrate adequate originality, academic quality and methodological soundness; and
- are suitable for external peer review.
Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, do not meet its minimum scholarly standards or raise serious ethical concerns may be rejected without external review.
External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise.
Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, theoretical contribution, methodology, analysis, clarity, ethical compliance and relevance to finance scholarship and practice. Relevant supplementary files may also be made available to reviewers.
Reviewer reports are confidential, anonymous and are not published with the article.
Reviewer Independence and Confidentiality
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest and decline the review when they cannot provide an independent and impartial assessment.
Submitted manuscripts and related materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable manuscript content to publicly accessible generative artificial-intelligence tools.
Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Editorial Decisions
After considering the reviewers’ reports and the scholarly quality of the manuscript, the editorial decision may be:
- accept;
- minor revision;
- major revision; or
- reject.
Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor may obtain an additional assessment from a third independent reviewer.
The handling editor may recommend a decision, but the final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent senior editor. Editorial decisions are based on academic merit and are independent of the authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, nationality or ability to pay an article processing charge.
A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers where further assessment is required.
Submissions from Editors and Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by an editor, editorial-board member or another person associated with the journal are subject to the same peer-review standards as all other submissions.
Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor, and the submitting editor or board member has no involvement in reviewer selection, editorial deliberations or the final decision.
Special Issues
Articles submitted to a special issue, where applicable, undergo the same initial assessment and independent external peer-review process as regular submissions.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for special issues. Manuscripts submitted by guest editors are handled independently, and guest editors do not participate in decisions concerning their own work.
Exceptions
Original research articles and review articles are externally peer-reviewed. Editorials, corrections, retractions, expressions of concern and publisher announcements may undergo editorial assessment rather than external peer review. The type of review applied to exceptional content will be identified where appropriate.
Ethical Standards
The journal conducts peer review in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the applicable requirements of the DOAJ Guide to Applying.
