Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines at CAP are designed to support objective, constructive, ethical, and high-quality peer review.
Contemporary Accounting Perspectives (CAP) values the critical role of reviewers in maintaining academic quality, editorial integrity, and scholarly excellence. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and confidential evaluations that contribute to the improvement of submitted manuscripts and the advancement of academic research.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and may not share or use unpublished material for personal purposes.
Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and may not share or use unpublished material for personal purposes.
Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and professionally without personal criticism of the authors.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and professionally without personal criticism of the authors.
Constructive Feedback
Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, detailed, and constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, detailed, and constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.
Review Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are generally expected to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
Originality and Contribution
Novelty, significance, and contribution to the literature.
Novelty, significance, and contribution to the literature.
Methodological Quality
Appropriateness and rigor of research design and methods.
Appropriateness and rigor of research design and methods.
Academic Relevance
Relevance to the journal’s aims, scope, and readership.
Relevance to the journal’s aims, scope, and readership.
Clarity and Organization
Quality of structure, language, argumentation, and presentation.
Quality of structure, language, argumentation, and presentation.
Use of Literature
Adequacy and relevance of references and theoretical framework.
Adequacy and relevance of references and theoretical framework.
Ethical Compliance
Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity standards.
Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity standards.
Possible Reviewer Recommendations
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no changes.
The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no changes.
Minor Revision
Limited revisions are required before publication.
Limited revisions are required before publication.
Major Revision
Substantial revisions and further evaluation are required.
Substantial revisions and further evaluation are required.
Reject
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in CAP.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in CAP.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, institutional, financial, or personal relationships with the author(s), their institutions, or the research described in the manuscript. If reviewers suspect that they can identify the author(s), or if a conflict of interest becomes apparent after accepting the invitation, they should inform the editor promptly. Further details are provided in the Conflict of Interest Policy.
Timeliness
Reviewers are asked to respond to review invitations within 7 days and to submit their evaluations within 4 weeks of accepting the invitation. If reviewers anticipate delays or are unable to complete the review, they should notify the editorial office promptly so that the manuscript can be reassigned without delaying the review process.
Ethical Considerations
Reviewers should report any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or other forms of academic misconduct to the editors.
Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, or any part of them, to generative artificial intelligence tools or other external services, as this may breach confidentiality and the authors’ rights. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their reports; AI tools may only be used for language polishing of the reviewer’s own text, and such use should be disclosed to the editor.
Editorial Communication
All reviewer comments should be submitted through the journal’s online system. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive recommendations both for authors and for the editors when appropriate.
