Scientia Accounting and Finance Journal (SAFIJ) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and relevance of published manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively, independently, and constructively. The review should focus on the scientific quality, relevance, originality, methodological appropriateness, clarity of analysis, and quality of references.

Reviewers should provide clear and constructive comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts. The reviewer's recommendation should reflect the overall quality of the manuscript and the extent of revisions required.

1. Relevance to the Journal's Focus and Scope

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is consistent with the focus and scope of SAFIJ. Manuscripts should address issues relevant to accounting, finance, or related fields covered by the journal.

2. Article Title

The title should accurately represent the subject, research problem, and main focus of the manuscript. Reviewers should assess whether the title is clear, specific, concise, and consistent with the content of the article.

3. Abstract

The abstract should provide a clear and concise overview of the research, including the research background or problem, objectives, methodology, main findings, and conclusion.

Reviewers should assess whether the abstract accurately reflects the content and findings of the manuscript.

4. Introduction

The introduction should clearly establish the background and urgency of the research problem. It should explain why the issue is important to investigate and identify the research gap addressed by the manuscript.

Authors should use at least five previous studies and compare the relevant findings, perspectives, or approaches in order to demonstrate the research gap, urgency, and novelty of the study.

The introduction should be supported by valid and relevant data or scholarly evidence rather than merely presenting opinions. The discussion should establish a clear connection between the existing literature, the research problem, and the purpose of the study.

5. Method

The method section should clearly explain how the research was conducted and how the data or research materials were obtained and analyzed.

The method should provide direct information regarding the research design, data collection techniques, data sources, analytical techniques, materials examined, comparative materials where applicable, and relevant rules, regulations, or other sources where applicable.

Authors do not need to provide lengthy definitions of general methodological terms. The method should instead focus on explaining what was done, what sources or data were used, and how they were analyzed.

6. Results and Discussion

The Results and Discussion section is a central component of the manuscript and should provide a clear, systematic, structured, and in-depth analysis of the research problem.

The discussion should:

• directly address the research problem;
• present the findings clearly and systematically;
• provide sufficient analytical depth;
• connect the findings with relevant theories, concepts, previous research, and authoritative sources;
• use relevant accounting, finance, economic, regulatory, or other principles where applicable;
• demonstrate the significance and implications of the findings; and
• clearly establish the contribution and novelty of the research.

The discussion should be sufficiently substantial in comparison with other sections of the manuscript. Authors are encouraged to divide the discussion into several relevant subheadings where necessary so that the analysis remains focused, organized, and does not become overly broad.

7. Conclusion

The conclusion should be concise, clear, and directly answer the research problem or research objectives. It should be presented in one coherent paragraph and should not use bullet points or numbering. The conclusion should reflect the findings and analysis presented in the manuscript rather than introducing new arguments or information.

8. References

Reviewers should assess whether the references are relevant, credible, and sufficiently up to date.

Authors are expected to prioritize scholarly sources published within the last five years, particularly relevant journal articles and other authoritative academic sources.

The manuscript should not rely on unreliable or non-scholarly sources such as Wikipedia, WordPress, Blogspot, or similar sources as substantive references. Reviewers should also consider whether the references cited in the manuscript genuinely support the arguments or statements for which they are cited.

9. General Comments

Reviewers should provide a concise overall assessment of the manuscript's substance, including its strengths, weaknesses, originality, methodological quality, analytical depth, and potential contribution to the field.

Comments should be constructive, specific, and professional. Where revisions are required, reviewers should clearly identify the aspects that need improvement and, where possible, provide recommendations for addressing the identified issues.

10. Publication Recommendation

After evaluating all aspects of the manuscript, reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editorial Board of SAFIJ. A reviewer's recommendation is an important part of the editorial decision-making process but does not by itself determine the final publication decision.