Editorial Policies

The Journal of Accounting, Business, Governance and Sustainability (ABGS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, independent, transparent, and ethically responsible editorial process. The journal’s editorial policies are designed to protect scholarly integrity, ensure fair peer review, support high-quality academic publishing, and preserve trust in the published record.

Editorial decisions at ABGS are guided by academic merit, originality, methodological soundness, theoretical contribution, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, ethical compliance, and significance to the field. The journal follows internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and is guided by the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

These editorial policies apply to the Editor-in-Chief, associate editors, section editors, guest editors, editorial board members, and any person involved in the editorial handling of manuscripts submitted to ABGS.

1. Editorial Independence

ABGS maintains full editorial independence. Decisions to accept, reject, request revision, or withdraw manuscripts from consideration are made by the editorial team based solely on scholarly and ethical criteria.

The publisher, sponsors, institutional partners, advertisers, funders, or external stakeholders do not influence editorial decisions. Editors exercise independent academic judgment and are responsible for ensuring that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, consistently, and without inappropriate influence.

Editorial independence applies to all submissions, including manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, publisher representatives, institutional affiliates, or individuals otherwise connected to the journal.

2. Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based on the following criteria:

Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
Originality and contribution to knowledge.
Theoretical, conceptual, empirical, methodological, policy, or practical relevance.
Methodological rigor and analytical quality.
Clarity, coherence, and scholarly presentation.
Ethical compliance and transparency.
Relevance to academic, professional, regulatory, or policy debates.

The editor is not required to follow reviewer recommendations mechanically. Final decisions reflect the editor’s independent assessment of the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and the journal’s editorial standards.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to ABGS undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review. At this stage, the editorial office or handling editor assesses whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

A manuscript may be rejected without external review where it:

Falls outside the journal’s aims and scope.
Does not meet minimum scholarly or methodological standards.
Lacks sufficient originality or contribution.
Contains serious ethical, authorship, data, or reporting concerns.
Does not comply with the journal’s submission requirements.
Is not sufficiently developed for peer review.
Shows evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or inappropriate text recycling.

Desk rejection is not a judgment on the general value of the topic, but an editorial decision regarding suitability, readiness, and alignment with ABGS standards.

4. Peer Review Process

ABGS operates a double-blind peer review process, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to support fairness, objectivity, and impartiality.

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. The handling editor considers reviewer reports, the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the authors’ responses before making a decision.

Editorial decisions may include:

Accept.
Minor revision.
Major revision.
Reject with invitation to resubmit.
Reject.

The peer review process is intended to improve the quality, clarity, rigor, and contribution of submitted manuscripts while supporting fair and evidence-informed editorial decision-making.

Peer Review Timelines and Reviewer Management

ABGS aims to complete initial editorial screening within 1 week of submission and to reach a first editorial decision within 2–4 weeks of a manuscript entering peer review, though timelines may vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Authors are notified if a decision is expected to take substantially longer than this target.

Reviewers are selected based on relevant subject-matter expertise, publication record, and, where available, prior reviewing experience. Before assignment, reviewers are screened for conflicts of interest, including recent co-authorship, current or recent institutional affiliation, or personal or professional relationships with the manuscript's authors; a reviewer with a disclosed conflict is not assigned to that manuscript.

ABGS acknowledges the contribution of its reviewers through an annual published list of reviewers who reviewed for the journal in the preceding year, unless a reviewer requests to remain unlisted.

5. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for protecting the academic quality, ethical integrity, and credibility of ABGS. Editors must ensure that manuscripts are handled fairly, confidentially, efficiently, and in accordance with the journal’s policies.

Editors are expected to:

Make decisions based only on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.
Ensure that manuscripts are reviewed by appropriately qualified reviewers.
Manage the peer review process fairly, objectively, and without discrimination.
Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished material.
Identify and manage conflicts of interest.
Recuse themselves from manuscripts where impartiality may reasonably be questioned.
Address ethical concerns, allegations of misconduct, and post-publication issues in accordance with COPE guidance.
Ensure that editorial decisions are not influenced by personal, institutional, financial, political, or commercial considerations.

Editors must not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for personal research, professional advantage, or disclosure to others without the authors’ explicit permission.

6. Submissions by Editors, Editorial Board Members, and Journal-Affiliated Individuals

ABGS recognizes that editors, editorial board members, reviewers, guest editors, and journal-affiliated individuals may also be active scholars. Such individuals may submit manuscripts to the journal; however, these submissions must be handled under strict safeguards to protect editorial independence, transparency, and trust in the peer review process.

When an editor, editorial board member, guest editor, reviewer, publisher representative, or journal staff member submits a manuscript to ABGS:

The submitting individual must not be involved in any stage of editorial handling, reviewer selection, peer review management, editorial discussion, decision-making, or appeal consideration for that manuscript.
The manuscript must be assigned to an independent handling editor with no personal, professional, institutional, supervisory, financial, or recent collaborative conflict of interest with the submitting author.
If the submitting author is the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript must be handled by an independent senior editor, associate editor, editorial board member, or external guest editor appointed specifically for that manuscript.
The manuscript must undergo the same editorial screening, peer review standards, reviewer requirements, revision process, and decision criteria applied to all other submissions.
The submitting editor or affiliated author must not access confidential reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, internal decision records, or system information beyond what is normally available to authors.
The editorial record must clearly document the recusal, independent handling editor, reviewer selection process, and final decision.
Where such a manuscript is accepted, the published article should include a conflict-of-interest statement confirming that the author had no involvement in the editorial review or decision-making process.

Acceptance of manuscripts submitted by editors or journal-affiliated individuals must be based solely on scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and the outcome of an independent peer review process.

7. Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Handling

Editors must declare and manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, impartial editorial judgment.

Conflicts of interest may include:

Recent co-authorship or collaboration with an author.
Current or recent institutional affiliation with an author.
Supervisory, advisory, or mentoring relationships.
Personal, family, financial, or professional relationships.
Academic competition or known personal conflict.
Direct involvement in the research, funding, or preparation of the manuscript.

Where a conflict exists, the editor must recuse themselves and the manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor.

8. Confidentiality

Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, author responses, and internal decision records must not be disclosed to anyone outside the editorial and peer review process.

Unpublished material from submitted manuscripts must not be used by editors or editorial board members for personal research, teaching, consultancy, publication, or professional advantage without the authors’ written permission.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the editorial process has ended, regardless of whether the manuscript is accepted, rejected, or withdrawn.

9. Ethical Oversight and Research Integrity

ABGS expects all manuscripts to comply with applicable ethical, legal, and professional standards. The editorial team may request clarification, documentation, ethical approval evidence, data availability information, authorship confirmation, conflict-of-interest disclosure, or other supporting material where necessary.

The journal may pause peer review, request further explanation, reject a manuscript, issue a correction, publish an expression of concern, retract an article, or notify relevant institutions if serious ethical concerns arise.

Ethical concerns are handled in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal’s publication ethics policies.

10. Allegations of Misconduct

ABGS investigates credible allegations of research or publication misconduct involving submitted, accepted, or published manuscripts.

Potential misconduct may include plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, image or figure manipulation, citation manipulation, peer review manipulation, unethical authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or breaches of research ethics.

Where concerns are identified, the editorial team may seek clarification from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, or independent experts. Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection, correction, retraction, expression of concern, notification of institutions, or other appropriate editorial action.

11. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

ABGS is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

A correction may be issued where an error is identified in a published article but the overall findings remain reliable.

A retraction may be issued where findings are unreliable, ethical violations are confirmed, peer review has been compromised, or serious misconduct has occurred.

An expression of concern may be issued where serious concerns exist but an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive.

All corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern will be clearly identified, linked to the original article, and made permanently accessible.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions where they believe there has been a procedural error, conflict of interest, misunderstanding, or demonstrable academic oversight. Appeals must be submitted in writing and must provide clear, evidence-based grounds for reconsideration.

Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor, associate editor, or editorial board member who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome may uphold the original decision, request further review, invite revision, or reverse the decision.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review procedures, publication ethics, or journal processes are handled fairly, transparently, and in accordance with COPE principles.

Independent Complaints Route for Concerns Involving the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher

Where a complaint, allegation of misconduct, or citation-integrity concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, the Publisher, or a person with a financial or ownership interest in the journal, it is not handled through the journal's standard editorial channels. Instead, such concerns are directed to Dr. Rafat , an editorial board member with no financial, reporting, or institutional relationship to the Publisher, who is specifically empowered to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of this kind.

Concerns of this nature may be submitted in writing to Rafat881973@gmail.com. The independent board member will acknowledge receipt within 5 business days, and will provide a substantive response or outline of next steps within 30 days. Where an investigation is required, it will follow COPE guidance and be completed within 90 days where practicable; the complainant will be informed of any expected delay.

The Editor-in-Chief or Publisher, where the subject of such a complaint, will have no role in reviewing, investigating, or deciding the matter.

13. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues must meet the same editorial, ethical, and peer review standards as regular issues of ABGS. Guest editors are required to follow the journal’s editorial policies, conflict-of-interest rules, confidentiality requirements, and peer review procedures.

The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of all special issue processes and final editorial responsibility for published content. Manuscripts submitted to special issues may be reassigned to independent editors where conflicts of interest arise.

Guest editors must not handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest, including manuscripts submitted by close collaborators, colleagues, students, supervisors, institutional affiliates, or individuals with whom they have a personal or professional relationship that may affect impartiality.

14. Editorial Board Governance

The editorial board supports the journal’s academic development, peer review capacity, ethical standards, and strategic direction. Editorial board members may advise on journal scope, reviewer identification, special issues, policy development, indexing readiness, and scholarly quality.

Membership on the editorial board does not guarantee publication in ABGS and does not provide preferential treatment in the review process. Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members are subject to the same independent handling and peer review safeguards applied to all journal-affiliated submissions.

15. Policy Review and Updates

ABGS reviews its editorial policies periodically to maintain alignment with COPE guidance, international indexing expectations, open science developments, and best practices in scholarly publishing.

Policy updates will be published on the journal website. Updated policies apply to manuscripts submitted after the date of publication, unless ethical, legal, or publication integrity considerations require otherwise.