Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

Veteran Economics, Management & Accounting Review (VEMAR) seeks to publish both theoretical and empirical papers in the fields of economics, management & accounting in private sector as well as public sector.

VEMAR covers but is not limited to:

Accounting Area:

  1. Financial Accounting
  2. Auditing
  3. Taxation
  4. Public Sector Accounting & Auditing
  5. Accounting information systems
  6. CSR and Sustainability
  7. Corporate Governance
  8. Management Accounting
  9. Islamic Accounting
  10. Accounting Education

Management Area:

  1. Marketing Management
  2. Human Resource Management
  3. Production Management
  4. Financial Management
  5. Management Information System
  6. International Business
  7. Business Law
  8. Entrepreneurship

Economics Area:

  1. Monetary
  2. Fiscal
  3. Environment and Natural resource
  4. Industrial Organization
  5. Regional and Urban Economics
  6. Sharia Economics

 

Section Policies

Artikel

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The practice of peer review is intended to ensure that only good science is published. As an objective method to guarantee excellence in scientific publishing, it has been adopted by all leading scientific journals. Our reviewers play an important role in maintaining the standards of the journal

Initial Manuscript evaluation

The editors first evaluate all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are not sufficiently original, have serious scientific defects, or fall outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those who meet the minimum criteria are usually forwarded to at least two expert reviewers for review.

Authors who are rejected at this stage will usually be notified within three weeks of being accepted.

Type of peer review

Veteran Economics, Management & Accounting Review (VEMAR) uses a 'double-blind' review, in which the reviewer remains anonymous from the author during and after the review process, while the identity of the author is also unknown to the reviewers.

How the reviewer is selected

Whenever possible, reviewers are matched with papers according to their expertise.

Reviewer report

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  1. Original in thought and method (including data)
  2. Methodologically sound
  3. Have results that are clearly presented and support conclusions
  4. References to previous relevant jobs correctly and completely
  5. Follow appropriate ethical guidelines, especially with regard to plagiarism
  6. Clearly increase knowledge and field development

How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process depends on the response of the author(s). The average time for the first round of review processes is about 2 (two) weeks, with a maximum of three months.

Final report

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the authors together with the recommendations made by the reviewers, including (if applicable) the final verbatim comments.

The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final

The reviewer advises the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.