Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic quality of REFA: Research in Finance and Accounting. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts to assist editors in making publication decisions and to help authors improve their work.

2. Review Process

REFA implements a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers based on:

  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope

  • Originality and novelty

  • Methodological rigor

  • Quality of analysis and discussion

  • Clarity of presentation and academic contribution

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts according to the following aspects:

  1. Title and Abstract

    • Clearly reflect the content and purpose of the study

    • Provide a concise overview of objectives, methods, and findings

  2. Introduction

    • Clear research background and problem formulation

    • Well-defined research gap, objectives, and contribution

  3. Research Method

    • Appropriateness of research design and methodology

    • Adequacy of data sources, sampling, and analysis techniques

  4. Results and Discussion

    • Clarity and coherence of findings

    • Depth of analysis and interpretation

    • Consistency with research objectives

    • Integration with relevant prior studies

  5. Conclusion

    • Logical consistency with results

    • Clear statement of contributions and implications

    • Identification of limitations and future research directions

  6. References

    • Relevance and adequacy of cited sources

    • Use of recent and reputable references

    • Proper citation and referencing style

4. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents

  • Avoid reviewing manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist

  • Provide unbiased and professional evaluations

  • Refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage

5. Review Recommendation

Reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

All recommendations must be supported by clear and constructive comments for both authors and editors.

6. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to complete the review within the timeframe specified by the editor. If reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, they should promptly inform the editorial team.

7. Language and Tone of Review

Review comments should be:

  • Constructive and respectful

  • Clear and specific

  • Focused on improving the quality of the manuscript

Personal criticism of the author(s) is not acceptable.