Editor's Statement on Review Policy
European Accounting Review aims to provide an efficient and high-quality review experience to authors. This statement provides more detail and background in the practical implications of this aim.
- European Accounting Review is committed to providing authors with a decision normally within a 100 day window. The editorial decision is based on constructive, thoughtful, and thorough review reports. The aim is to provide authors, regardless of the publication outcome, with helpful and insightful feedback.
- The editorial team believes that each paper should receive a fair evaluation based on the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Authors are encouraged to use the available features of the journal’s editorial process to maximize their chances for publication. Authors can identify their preferred editor when submitting their papers. Authors are also encouraged to use the covering letter to communicate any particular circumstances to the editor that they feel are relevant in the evaluation of their studies. For example, authors may mention to the editor the existence of competing papers and ask for a careful consideration of a potential conflict of interest. In general, the EAR editorial team is committed to listening to the concerns of authors. Our policy of fairness implies that we take the authors seriously and do whatever is possible to help them to publish their papers in EAR, provided their studies meet the journal’s publication standards.
- The assigned (associate) editor decides on the number of reviewers s/he needs to make an informed decision about the submission. In most cases, the editor will use two reviewers.
- The assigned (associate) editor carefully reads each manuscript before making a decision. While the reviewers' evaluations of the manuscript will weigh significantly in the editor’s decision-making, editors may take a different position based on their independent reading of the manuscript.
- Unless the decision letter explicitly mentions differently, European Accounting Review does not accept resubmissions of previously rejected papers. In some cases, a paper may have changed to such an extent that the manuscript is substantively a new paper. In those circumstances, authors should inform the editor that their submission concerns a previously rejected paper (and include that paper’s manuscript ID). As a general policy, the new paper will be assigned to the same editor who rejected the original submission.
- All submissions are initially evaluated by the editor to determine whether a paper has a sufficiently large probability of meeting the publication standards of European Accounting Review. The editor (and the assigned associate editor) can make decisions on papers without inviting a review (i.e., “desk-rejection”) for those studies that clearly do not meet the journal’s academic standards and/or are outside the journal’s aims and scope. Desk rejections prevent unnecessary delays in the review process for papers for which EAR is not an appropriate outlet. These rejections also help to ensure that the valuable time of qualified reviewers is not misspent. It also allows the authors to reconsider their publication outlets without unnecessary delays. A common cause for desk rejections is that authors have failed to obtain feedback on their work prior to submitting it to the journal. The editor strongly recommends that authors seek feedback from experts and colleagues in their fields before submitting their manuscripts to EAR.
- In accordance with European Accounting Review’s general policy of treating authors fairly, the editor will listen when authors believe that a decision on their paper was based on erroneous review reports or clear misinterpretations by either the reviewer or the assigned associate editor. Because complaints from authors put a considerable strain on editorial resources, they should be resorted to only in those cases where indisputable errors have been made in the decision process and the editor’s decision is likely to change if the errors are corrected.
- European Accounting Review tries to have a clear decision on submissions within three rounds. Editors suggesting (major or minor) revisions commit to providing clear guidance as to the work needed to pass the publication hurdle for those manuscripts. We expect authors to follow this guidance and work diligently to address the feedback provided by the editor and reviewers. Because the editors spend considerable effort in laying out what they expect from authors in the revision, they will not accept halfhearted attempts to meet these expectations. In those circumstances, the editors will reject the paper in the second round. For some papers, the editors may not be able to see a clear revision path. When the study nevertheless has some potential, the editor will use the “reject/revise with low likelihood of publication” decision. The uncertainty associated with this decision should be resolved in the second round, with the editor either providing clear guidance about the path to publication or rejecting the study.
Next EAA congresses
2018 - Milan, Italy (30 May - 1 June)
2019 - Paphos, Cyprus