Journal of Finance and Accounting

Become a Reviewer

Who Can Become a Reviewer?

The primary requirement for becoming a reviewer is a profound expertise in your respective research field, coupled with the ability to provide thorough, objective, and constructive evaluations of manuscripts. Moreover, we outline distinct qualifications and requirements that potential applicants are anticipated to fulfill.

Our qualifications and requirements for a potential reviewer are as follows:

A minimum of 3 years research or professional experience in the relevant field of the applied journal.
A minimum of 3 publications on the same topic as the applied journal.
Priority will be given to applicants who hold doctoral degrees.
Preference will be given to those with relevant reviewing experience.

How to Become a Reviewer?

Engaging in the peer review process not only significantly contributes to the scientific community but also brings considerable benefits for your own research and career development. At SciencePG, we always appreciate and welcome professionals who are interested in becoming part of our dedicated reviewer team.

If you are interested, you could join by following the procedures outlined below.

Here are the procedures:

Step 1: If you don't have an English CV, you can download the provided CV template for reference.

Step 2: If you haven't registered yet, please create an account by visiting: https://sso.sciencepg.com/register
Step 3: After registering, log in using your username and password: https://sso.sciencepg.com/login
Step 4: Click on "Become a Reviewer" under the "Join" section.
Requirements and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an indispensable role at SciencePG, as they bear significant responsibility for upholding the integrity of scholarly content. Reviewers are expected to provide a fair, objective, and timely evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviewers for SciencePG should meet the following criteria:

No conflicts of interest with any of the authors or the research being reviewed.
Not affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
Have no co-authored publications with the authors within the past three years.
Have substantial academic or professional expertise in the field of the submitted paper.

Reviewers for SciencePG are expected to:

Assess the scientific quality of the manuscript with their expert knowledge.
Prepare comprehensive and detailed review reports, and remain responsive throughout the peer review process.
Uphold the highest standards of professionalism and ethics, avoiding personal, financial, or intellectual biases, focusing solely on the research quality and written presentation of the manuscript.
Preserve confidentiality throughout the review process, not disclosing or using any unpublished information or communicating the manuscript content without prior consent from SciencePG.
Refrain from contacting the authors directly without SciencePG's permission.
Suggest citations of the reviewer’s work only when they contribute to the manuscript's academic or technological relevance, not merely to increase citation count or enhance the visibility of the reviewer's work.
Reviewers are asked to maintain their affiliation updated on their reviewer account to allow editors to identify potential conflicts of interest promptly.
Complete the review process by providing the review reports within 7-10 days. If unable to adhere to this timeline or an extension is needed, please promptly communicate with the editorial team.

We understand our reviewers are often engaged in multiple responsibilities, so if you are unable to accept an invitation to review or face any issues after acceptance, please notify us promptly. Recommending an alternative reviewer in such instances is greatly appreciated.

Benefits for Reviewers

Scholars will be entitled to the following benefits when working with SciencePG as reviewers.

Benefits for Serving as Reviewers:

Enhance your professional reputation through peer review involvement.
Access cutting-edge research and expand your academic network.
Receive a personalized reviewer certificate for your contribution.
Enjoy exclusive discounts on Article Processing Charges when publishing with SciencePG.
What is Peer Review?

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and a process that ensures the validity and quality of scientific literature. It involves the evaluation of research work by experts (peers) in the relevant field, aiming to assess its rigor, coherence, and contribution to existing knowledge.

Key aspects of peer review:

  • Evaluation

    Peer review serves as an effective tool for assessing research, facilitating the selection of top-quality articles for publication.

  • Quality Assurance

    Through the process of review and suggested revisions, peer review enhances the overall quality of the published article, providing the author with valuable insights into their research.

  • Integrity

    Peer review supports integrity in research through the rigor of the process itself. If the article is being peer reviewed, it’s being scrutinized in detail, so that readers can trust in the validity and accuracy of the research they're reading.

  • Networking

    The peer review system also fosters a sense of community, enabling fruitful interactions and networking within the research community.

At SciencePG, we consider the peer review process crucial for maintaining the credibility and validity of the research we publish. Despite challenges, peer review remains the widely accepted method for validating research, and we are committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarship. By engaging expert reviewers, we ensure the rigor and trustworthiness of the published work, fostering confidence within the scientific community and beyond.

Types of Peer Review

The primary peer review models include single-anonymized, double-anonymized, and open peer review. With time, variations such as transparent, collaborative, and post-publication peer reviews have evolved. Suitable new models will be integrated into our process as they emerge. Our goal is to remain at the cutting edge of scholarly publishing by embracing both traditional and innovative peer review models.

Here is a simplified guide to the different models of peer review:

  • Single Anonymized Review

    Commonly referred to as "single-blind review", this is where reviewers are aware of the author's identity, but the author does not know the reviewers.

  • Double Anonymized Review

    Also known as "double-blind review", the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept secret.

  • Open Peer Review

    The identities of the author and the reviewer are disclosed to all parties, either during or after the review process.

  • Transparent Peer Review

    The review report is published along with the final article. The reviewer has the option to disclose their identity.

  • Collaborative Review

    Multiple reviewers collaborate to produce a unified report or the author improves the manuscript under the guidance of one or more reviewers.

  • Post Publication Review

    This involves the review of a published paper, which can be either solicited or unsolicited. It does not exclude other forms of peer review.

How to Perform Peer Review
Invitation to Review

SciencePG is committed to publishing high-quality scientific research. Each manuscript submitted to us undergoes a thorough review process conducted by at least two expert reviewers, who may be volunteer reviewers, members of our reviewer board, or suggested by the authors during the submission. These reviewers are integral in evaluating the manuscript's quality and offering recommendations on its suitability for publication.

To ensure an efficient and effective review process, we request reviewers to:

Respond promptly to review invitations, based on their understanding and interest in the manuscript title and abstract.
Suggest alternative reviewers should they need to decline the invitation, ensuring that the manuscript still gets an expert perspective.
Request an extension, if necessary, to ensure a thorough and comprehensive review report.

Before starting a review, there are several factors to consider:

Timing: Reviews are expected to be completed with 7-10 days. Please communicate immediately with the editor if this deadline cannot be met.
Suitability: If there is any conflict of interest or other reasons that might impede an objective review, please inform the journal's editor.
Confidentiality: The content of the manuscript should not be shared without the editor's permission. If you suspect misconduct, only discuss it with the editor.
Co-reviewing: If you plan to collaborate on a review with a colleague or student, please inform the journal editor beforehand.
Review Reports
1

The Elements of Review Reports:

Review reports for SciencePG are expected to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the submission, going beyond providing only short or concise remarks. Although SciencePG doesn't prescribe a strict report structure, we recommend the following format:

  • Brief Summary

    Include a short paragraph outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions, and strengths.

  • General Concept Comments

    For Research Articles: Highlight any areas of weakness, such as testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
    For Review Articles: Comment on the completeness and relevance of the review topic covered, the identified gap in knowledge, and the appropriateness of references.

    Remember, these comments should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript and be specific enough for the authors to respond.

  • Specific Comments

    Provide specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or unclear sentences.

2

Review Guide for Research Articles:

Evaluate the clarity, relevance, and structure of the manuscript.
Assess the recency and relevance of the cited references, and look for an excessive number of self-citations.
Review the scientific soundness and the appropriateness of the experimental design.
Evaluate the reproducibility of the results based on the methods section.
Assess the figures/tables for appropriateness and interpretability. Comment on the statistical analysis or specific data.
Ensure the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Evaluate the ethics and data availability statements.
3

Review Guide for Review Articles:

Evaluate the clarity, comprehensiveness, and relevance of the review. Identify any gaps in knowledge.
Check for similar reviews published recently, and assess the current review's relevance and interest to the scientific community.
Review the recency and relevance of the cited references, look for omitted relevant citations, and check for an excessive number of self-citations.
Ensure the statements and conclusions are coherent and supported by the listed citations.
Assess the figures/tables for appropriateness and interpretability.
Overall Recommendation

In addition to review comments, the reviewer will likely be expected to select an overall recommendation to the editor. SciencePG’s most common recommendation types are:

1

Accept without any changes

This decision is reserved for exceptional manuscripts that demonstrate exemplary scholarship. The paper will be published in its original form.

2

Accept with minor revisions

Most accepted papers fall under this category. The manuscript shows promise, but requires minor amendments to enhance clarity, context or polish. Authors are encouraged to address these revisions diligently, using reviewer comments as guidance.

3

Consider after major revisions

This decision indicates that while the paper's central argument or findings are sound, significant revisions are necessary for publication. The author is required to address all the reviewer's comments carefully and provide a detailed response point by point.

4

Revise and resubmit

In cases where a manuscript shows potential but requires substantial changes, this decision will be given. Once the authors have made the requisite changes, the manuscript will be reassessed in another round of review.

5

Reject the paper

For manuscripts with considerable flaws or lack of original contribution, an outright rejection will be advised. Under such circumstances, the manuscript will not be reconsidered for publication, regardless of the revisions made.

Peer Review Ethics

Ethical considerations are vital when conducting a review, and it is crucial to be aware of potential issues. Should you encounter any of the following situations, we advise contacting the journal editor immediately.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

At SciencePG, we urge reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and communicate with the journal editorial office if there's uncertainty about what may constitute a conflict. Conflicts of interest might include but are not limited to:

Affiliation: Reviewers working at the same institution as any of the authors.
Academic Connection: Any academic interaction with the authors in the past three years, including co-authoring, collaboration, or joint grant holding.
Personal Relationship: Any close personal relationship, rivalry, or antipathy with any of the authors.
Financial Interest: Potential financial gain or loss from the publication of the manuscript.
Non-financial Conflicts: Other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

Reviewers should openly disclose any conflicts that could be perceived as bias for or against the manuscript or the authors.

Please note that having previously reviewed a manuscript for another journal is not considered a conflict of interest. In such a case, reviewers should inform the editorial office about any improvements compared to the previous version of the manuscript.

Also, reviewers are encouraged to comment on authors' disclosed conflicts of interest. If there are concerns that authors may not have fully disclosed financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests, these should be indicated in the reviewer report.

Declaration of Confidentiality

SciencePG operates a rigorous peer review process that requires reviewers to uphold strict confidentiality. Until the manuscript is published, the content, including the abstract, should remain confidential. Reviewers should avoid revealing their identities to the authors, either through their comments or metadata in reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group given the confidentiality of the manuscript is upheld. If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague in the review process, they must first inform the SciencePG editorial office.

If reviewers wish to disclose their identities, they can choose to do so by signing the review report. However, in all other instances, review reports are deemed confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.

We urge all our reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the review process and treat manuscripts as confidential documents. It is against our policy to disclose any aspect of the review process or the manuscript to anyone who is not directly involved.

Duplicate Publication or Submission

If you suspect the manuscript has been previously published or concurrently submitted to another journal, please report this. Authors are obligated to disclose any prior publication or submission of their work for the editor's consideration, and proper attribution should be given if applicable.

Plagiarism

SciencePG takes instances of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or any other breaches of publication best practices very seriously. We strive to protect our authors' rights and always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published works. Furthermore, we seek to maintain the reputation of our journals against any form of malpractice.

Ethical Concerns in Research Conduct

If you have concerns about the ethics of the research conducted, please raise them. Authors are responsible for declaring any potential conflicts of interest and acknowledging funding bodies that facilitated their research. It's also their responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary permissions for the use of any data or results sourced from others.
http://financeaccounting.org/become-a-reviewer
financeaccounting.org
CC-MAIN-2024-18
53534
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SAWMKGHKLOH5PMOCWCAGPZO44HQJOC45
<urn:uuid:ba0fd643-d84f-4110-a19e-c47987d0bdd2>
2024-04-18T14:52:25Z
47.88.20.168
text/html
sha1:6XTVWPYZLZOGG2GRAVUURJ5Y2WEM7EXW
<urn:uuid:5a5f9fc6-8571-4a3b-a903-6fbeddbc721d>
http://financeaccounting.org/become-a-reviewer
response
<urn:uuid:38f6c815-f91b-4e30-b1fd-5013b0c4d497>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-150
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/