Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to BINEKA (Business, Economics, and Accounting) undergoes a structured editorial assessment and peer-review process. This process ensures that published articles meet the journal’s standards of originality, scientific quality, methodological accuracy, ethical compliance, and relevance to the fields of business, economics, and accounting.

BINEKA applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission.

  1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. The manuscript must comply with the journal template, author guidelines, focus and scope, publication ethics, and other submission requirements.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the submitted version and that the manuscript is not under consideration by another publication.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal’s focus and scope
  • Follows the journal template and author guidelines
  • Contains the required manuscript components
  • Demonstrates adequate academic and methodological quality
  • Meets the journal’s standards of originality and research ethics
  • Uses appropriate language and academic writing conventions

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external review.

  1. Similarity and Ethical Compliance Check

Before proceeding to peer review, the manuscript may be examined using plagiarism-detection software. The Editorial Team also reviews possible issues involving duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, improper authorship, citation manipulation, conflicts of interest, and research ethics.

A manuscript may be rejected if it contains an unacceptable level of similarity or indicates a serious breach of publication ethics.

  1. Reviewer Appointment

The editor appoints at least two independent reviewers based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and suitability for the manuscript’s subject.

Reviewers must not have personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships that could influence their assessment. Reviewers who identify a potential conflict of interest must inform the editor and decline the review assignment.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently without knowing the authors’ identities. The authors are likewise not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

The assessment generally covers:

  • Originality and significance of the study
  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope
  • Clarity of the research objectives or questions
  • Adequacy of the theoretical and literature foundations
  • Appropriateness of the research design and methodology
  • Accuracy of the data analysis and interpretation
  • Consistency between the findings, discussion, and conclusions
  • Academic contribution and practical implications
  • Quality and relevance of the references
  • Compliance with ethical and academic writing standards

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, clear, and evidence-based comments to assist the editor in making a publication decision and to help the authors improve their manuscripts.

  1. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accepted without revision
  2. Accepted with minor revisions
  3. Major revisions required
  4. Resubmit for review
  5. Rejected

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor. Reviewer recommendations are important considerations but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

  1. Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript
  • A detailed response to each reviewer comment
  • A clear explanation of revisions made
  • A reasoned academic response to any suggestion that was not followed

Revisions should be completed within the period specified by the editor. Authors who require additional time must contact the Editorial Team before the deadline. Failure to submit the revision without prior notice may result in the manuscript being treated as a new submission or being withdrawn from the editorial process.

  1. Re-evaluation and Final Decision

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions are required. The editor assesses whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and whether the revised manuscript meets the journal’s publication standards.

A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision. Acceptance is granted only after all substantive and technical requirements have been satisfactorily fulfilled.

  1. Copyediting and Proofreading

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the copyediting, layout, and proofreading stages. The Editorial Team may correct grammar, spelling, formatting, references, and presentation without changing the substance of the article.

The corresponding author may receive the final proof for review. At this stage, only minor corrections are permitted. Major changes to the content, authorship, data, or conclusions require editorial approval.

  1. Publication

The final article is published in an official issue of BINEKA and made available through the journal’s online platform. Publication scheduling is determined by the Editorial Team based on editorial readiness and the journal’s publication plan.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts, supporting documents, review reports, and correspondence. Unpublished information may not be used, shared, quoted, or disclosed without written permission from the authors and the editor.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial factual error, procedural irregularity, or reviewer misunderstanding. Appeals must provide clear academic grounds and supporting evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer’s opinion alone is not sufficient.

The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the appeal fairly and may consult an independent reviewer when necessary. The decision made after the appeal process is final.