Editorial process and peer review

Workflow overview

Stage	Responsible	What happens
1. Technical screening	Editorial office	Documents, anonymization, template, statements and eligibility (“Technical and merit screening” item).
2. Similarity and merit screening	Associate Editor	Similarity report and relevance to the scope (“Technical and merit screening” item).
3. Peer review	Two reviewers	Review reports using a standardized form (“Peer review model and exceptions”, “Reviewer selection and number of reports”, “Evaluation criteria and form” and “Guidance for reviewers” items).
4. Tie-breaking	Third reviewer or handling editor	Only in the case of divergent reports (“Reviewer selection and number of reports” item).
5. Revision by the authors	Authors	New version with a point-by-point response letter.
6. Decision	Editor-in-Chief	Reasoned acceptance or rejection (“Editorial decision” item).
7. Production and proofs	Technical team and authors	Editing, typesetting and approval of the proofs (“Production and proofs” item).
8. Publication	Editor-in-Chief	Continuous publication, registration of the DOI and metadata (“Acceptance, publication and withdrawal” item).

Technical and merit screening

The editorial office checks the documents, anonymization, template, title, abstract and keywords in English, statements and eligibility. The Associate Editor analyzes the similarity report (“Plagiarism, similarity and text recycling” item, in Ethics and Integrity), relevance to the scope and minimum contribution. Incomplete manuscripts are returned for adjustment; those lacking relevance or minimum contribution are rejected, with a reasoned notification.

Peer review model and exceptions

Articles and case law and legislation commentaries are reviewed under the double-blind system: authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity; review reports are not published. Texts not peer reviewed (Editorial, Issue Introduction, Book reviews and Invited articles) are identified as such in the table of contents.

Open review (optional): with the consent of authors and reviewers, the journal may disclose the identities of the parties to each other and publish the reviewer’s name or the review report with the article. Authors must state their consent in the “Comments for the Editor” field during submission.

Reviewer selection and number of reports

Each manuscript receives at least two review reports from reviewers holding a doctoral degree, who are experts on the topic, from institutions other than those of the authors and, whenever possible, from different states or countries, without the ties described in the “Conflicts of interest” item, in Ethics and Integrity. In the case of divergent reports, the handling editor invites a third reviewer or, if they have expertise on the topic, issues the tie-breaking report themselves, which is recorded in the system.

Evaluation criteria and form

Reviewers complete in OJS the form in Appendix B, which assigns each criterion the rating Superior, Adequate or Inadequate:

Criterion	What is assessed
1. Relevance of the topic	Importance and timeliness of the topic and potential impact on the academic and professional community; originality of the contribution.
2. Quality of the approach	How the topic is addressed: clear problem and thesis, consistent legal and accounting argumentation and reasoning and conclusions consistent with the discussion.
3. Quality of the writing	Clarity, coherence and cohesion of the writing; suitability of the title, abstract and keywords to the content.
4. Quality of the research	Method employed and sufficiency of the sources (legal scholarship, legislation, case law, accounting standards and data); accuracy and currency of citations and references.
5. Fit with the editorial line	Connection between the research object and the focus and scope of the journal (“Focus and scope” item, in About the Journal).

The form includes comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editor (“Guidance for reviewers” item).

Guidance for reviewers

Reviewers respond to the invitation within 7 days and decline it if they do not feel qualified, cannot meet the deadline or have a conflict of interest (“Conflicts of interest” item, in Ethics and Integrity). The review report is reasoned, respectful and constructive, with comments to the authors (“For author and editor” field) and, if necessary, confidential comments (“For editor only” field). Reviewers conclude with one of the recommendations available in OJS:

Recommendation in OJS	When to use
Accept Submission	The manuscript can be published as is or with minimal formal adjustments.
Revisions Required	The manuscript will be accepted after specific corrections, checked by the editor, without a new round of review.
Resubmit for Review	Substantial changes are required; the new version returns to the reviewer.
Resubmit Elsewhere	The work has merit but does not fit the focus and scope of the journal.
Decline Submission	The manuscript does not meet the quality criteria and should not be resubmitted.
See Comments	The recommendation does not fit the previous options and is explained in the comments to the editor.

The complete guidance is in the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines [link]. Confidentiality obligations and the use of AI are covered in the “Confidentiality” and “Artificial intelligence” items, in Ethics and Integrity.

Timeframes

Stage	Reference timeframe
Technical and merit screening (first decision)	within 15 days of submission
Reviewer response to the invitation	within 7 days
Submission of the review report	within 30 days of accepting the invitation
Revision by the authors	within 30 days (minor corrections: 15 days)
Decision after the last review report	within 15 days
Final decision	within 120 days of submission
Publication after acceptance	within 60 days

Authors are informed of significant delays and may withdraw the manuscript at any time before acceptance.

Editorial decision

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the review reports and on the recommendation of the handling Associate Editor, who may have acted as tie-breaking reviewer (“Reviewer selection and number of reports” item). The editor is not bound by the sum of the reports and may, with reasons, request an additional report or depart from a recommendation. Every decision is communicated in writing, together with the review reports.

Acceptance, publication and withdrawal

Accepted articles are produced and published within 60 days, in chronological order of acceptance. The journal does not select accepted articles according to the authors’ origin, does not keep them in a queue and does not shelve or reject articles already accepted, unless misconduct or a breach of this policy is found, with a reasoned notification and right of appeal (“Complaints, appeals and ombudsperson” item, in Governance and management). After acceptance, withdrawal by the authors requires justification to the Editor-in-Chief.

Production and proofs

The technical team carries out language and style editing and typesetting, without altering the content. Proofs are sent to the corresponding author, who approves them or indicates corrections within 5 business days; changes to content at this stage require the editor’s approval.

Reviewer recognition

The journal issues a certificate for each completed review report and publishes annually the list of the year’s reviewers, without linking them to manuscripts. Reviewers may record the activity in ORCID.