Every manuscript submitted through the official JAMBD Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or an assigned editor.

The initial screening examines:

• conformity with the journal's Aims & Scope;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• completeness and quality of the manuscript;
• compliance with the Author Guidelines and article template;
• similarity or potential plagiarism;
• ethical and research-integrity requirements; and
• basic methodological and academic suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, insufficiently original, methodologically inappropriate, or in serious violation of publication ethics may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area, methodology, or disciplinary context.

Reviewer selection considers:

• expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• scholarly publication record;
• institutional and academic independence;
• absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and
• ability to provide substantive and objective academic evaluation.

A third reviewer or additional expert may be appointed when reviewer recommendations differ substantially, when specialized expertise is required, or when the editor considers additional evaluation necessary.

JAMBD applies a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous review and to avoid unnecessarily including identifying information in the manuscript file during the review stage.

Reviewers are asked to provide a critical and constructive assessment of the manuscript. The review normally addresses the following aspects:

• Originality and novelty: whether the manuscript identifies a clear research problem, research gap, and meaningful contribution.
• Relevance: whether the manuscript fits JAMBD's scope and contributes to accounting, management, business, finance, entrepreneurship, or digital business.
• Theoretical foundation: whether the argument is supported by relevant literature and appropriate theoretical reasoning.
• Methodological rigor: whether the design, data, sampling, measurement, analysis, or other methods are appropriate and sufficiently transparent.
• Results: whether the findings are presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the methods and data.
• Discussion: whether the findings are critically interpreted and meaningfully compared with relevant previous studies and/or theory.
• Conclusions and implications: whether the conclusions are supported by the findings and whether the manuscript offers useful theoretical or practical implications.
• Ethics and research integrity: whether relevant ethical, authorship, conflict-of-interest, data-integrity, and reporting requirements have been addressed.
• References: whether the references are relevant, appropriately current, sufficiently scholarly, and accurately cited.

Reviewers provide comments for the authors and confidential or editorial recommendations where appropriate. Recommendations may include:

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments and to submit:

• a revised manuscript;
• a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments; and
• a clear explanation where a reviewer recommendation has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor depending on the extent and nature of the revisions required.

More than one round of revision may be required before a final editorial decision is made.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the responsible editor after considering:

• reviewer reports;
• author responses and revisions;
• scientific quality and originality;
• methodological soundness;
• relevance to the journal's scope;
• publication ethics and research-integrity considerations.

When reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek an additional review or consult another qualified member of the Editorial Board before reaching a decision.

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, distribute, copy, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review process has ended.

Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, academic, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

A reviewer who has a relevant conflict of interest should decline the review invitation or immediately notify the editor.

Authors who believe that a material error, procedural issue, misunderstanding, or overlooked evidence affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints & Appeals Policy.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision and should provide specific scholarly or procedural grounds rather than merely disagreement with reviewer recommendations.

Scholars with relevant expertise and an appropriate publication record may express interest in becoming a reviewer for JAMBD.

Prospective reviewers should provide information on their academic affiliation, areas of expertise, scholarly profile, and relevant publication record.

Reviewer appointment is determined by the editorial team based on expertise, scholarly qualifications, journal needs, independence, and suitability for the manuscript under consideration.

Reviewers contribute their scholarly expertise on a voluntary basis. Reviewer service does not create an entitlement to payment, manuscript acceptance, preferential treatment, or other editorial benefit.