Guidelines for Reviewing a Manuscript

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Strategic Behaviour Accounting (JSBA) based on the following criteria.

1. Relevance to Journal Scope

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is relevant to the focus and scope of JSBA, including strategic and behavioral accounting, strategic management accounting, management control systems, accounting information systems, digital transformation, auditing, governance, ethics, banking, financial institutions, sustainability / ESG accounting, or international and cross-cultural accounting.

2. Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript presents a clear research gap, novelty, and contribution to theory, practice, policy, or methodology. The manuscript should not merely repeat previous studies without meaningful academic contribution.

3. Abstract and Keywords

The abstract should clearly present the research objective, method, main findings, conclusion, and contribution. Keywords should be relevant, specific, and reflect the main topic of the manuscript.

4. Introduction

The introduction should clearly explain the background, research problem, research gap, objective, novelty, and contribution of the study. The argument should be logical and supported by relevant literature.

5. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The literature review should be relevant, up to date, and critically synthesized. The theoretical framework, hypotheses, propositions, or conceptual model should be clearly developed and connected to the research objective.

6. Research Method

The method should be appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently detailed. Reviewers should assess the research design, population and sample, data sources, measurement, instruments, data collection procedure, validity and reliability, and analysis technique. For qualitative or literature review studies, the selection criteria, coding process, data analysis procedure, and trustworthiness should be clearly explained.

7. Results and Discussion

The results should be presented clearly using appropriate tables, figures, or narratives. The discussion should interpret the findings, connect them to prior studies and theory, and explain their theoretical and practical implications. Authors should avoid overclaiming beyond the evidence.

8. Conclusion and Implications

The conclusion should answer the research objective and summarize the main findings. The manuscript should also present theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

9. References

References should be relevant, recent, and formatted according to APA style. Reviewers should check whether the cited sources are appropriate, credible, and sufficiently connected to the manuscript.

10. Ethics and Academic Integrity

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows ethical standards, including originality, plagiarism avoidance, appropriate citation, data transparency, research ethics, and conflict of interest disclosure where applicable.

Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

1. Accept Submission;
2. Minor Revision;
3. Major Revision;
4. Reject.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment.