Presentation

Does the manuscript present a coherent, theoretically grounded, and evidence-based argument? Are the ideas clearly, logically, and systematically organized?

Writing Quality

Does the title accurately represent the manuscript? Is the writing concise, precise, academically appropriate, grammatically correct, and easy to follow?

Length and Organization

Which parts of the manuscript should be expanded, removed, condensed, summarized, reorganized, or combined to improve clarity, analytical depth, practical relevance, and scholarly contribution?

Title

Is the title concise, informative, and representative of the study’s principal variables, context, analytical focus, or main finding? Does it avoid unnecessary expressions, implicit terms, and unexplained abbreviations?

Abstract

Does the abstract clearly include:

• The background and aim or purpose of the study;
• The research method, setting, data sources, population, sample, or participants;
• The analytical techniques used in the study;
• The principal results or findings; and
• The main conclusion, contribution, and practical or policy implications?

Introduction

Does the introduction clearly describe:

• The background and significance of the study in economics, management, accounting, business, governance, or related applied fields;
• The state of the art and relevant previous research;
• The theoretical, empirical, practical, or policy-related research gap;
• A clear statement of novelty and original contribution;
• The theoretical or conceptual framework underpinning the study;
• The research questions and/or hypotheses, where relevant;
• The approach used to address the identified research problem; and
• The aim and specific objectives of the study?

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

• Does the literature review critically synthesize relevant and recent studies rather than merely summarize previous publications?
• Are the principal theories, concepts, and variables clearly defined and appropriately connected?
• Is the proposed relationship among variables supported by adequate theoretical and empirical justification?
• Are the hypotheses or research propositions formulated clearly, logically, and consistently with the conceptual framework?
• Does the literature review demonstrate how the study extends, challenges, or applies existing knowledge?

Method

• Is the research design described clearly enough to permit evaluation and replication?
• Does the section explain how the research was conducted rather than merely defining methodological terms?
• Are the research context, location, population, sample, participants, data sources, sampling procedures, instruments, variables, measurements, procedures, and analytical techniques clearly reported?
• Are the operational definitions, indicators, measurement scales, and sources of research instruments adequately explained?
• For quantitative studies, are the sample-size determination, instrument validity and reliability, statistical assumptions, model specifications, estimation techniques, evaluation criteria, and robustness procedures appropriately reported?
• For econometric or financial studies, are the data period, unit of analysis, variable measurements, model selection, diagnostic tests, endogeneity concerns, and robustness checks adequately addressed?
• For structural equation modeling studies, are the measurement model, structural model, validity, reliability, collinearity, explanatory power, predictive relevance, and hypothesis-testing procedures reported appropriately?
• For qualitative studies, are the participants, research setting, data-collection procedures, coding or analytical techniques, credibility strategies, and researcher reflexivity clearly explained?
• For literature reviews, are the databases, search strategies, keywords, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, quality assessment, and synthesis techniques transparently reported?
• Are ethical approval, informed consent, confidentiality, data protection, and research-permission procedures reported where applicable?

Results and Discussion

• Are the results presented as systematically processed and analyzed data rather than raw information?
• Are tables and figures relevant, readable, correctly numbered, and supported by clear titles, captions, notes, and explanations?
• Are descriptive statistics, measurement results, model evaluations, hypothesis tests, or qualitative findings reported accurately and completely?
• Do the results directly address the research questions, hypotheses, or objectives stated in the Introduction?
• Are the findings interpreted analytically rather than merely restated?
• Are the findings critically compared with relevant theories and previous empirical studies?
• Does the discussion explain agreements, differences, unexpected findings, and possible underlying economic, organizational, institutional, behavioral, or managerial mechanisms?
• Does the manuscript explain its theoretical, methodological, managerial, economic, financial, accounting, governance, public policy, or professional implications where relevant?
• Does the study demonstrate a meaningful contribution to applied economics, management, accounting, accountability, or related fields?
• Are the study limitations and potential threats to validity acknowledged clearly?
• Are meaningful directions for future research or practical application provided?

Conclusion

Does the conclusion:

• Directly answer the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses;
• Synthesize the principal findings without merely repeating the Results section;
• State the study’s theoretical and practical contributions;
• Provide realistic managerial, economic, accounting, governance, professional, or policy recommendations where appropriate;
• Acknowledge the main limitations and provide relevant future research directions; and
• Appear as a coherent paragraph rather than bullet points or numbering?

References

• Are the references relevant, credible, sufficiently recent, and appropriate to the manuscript’s topic and theoretical framework?
• Are important foundational and contemporary studies in economics, management, accounting, accountability, or related fields adequately represented?
• Are all in-text citations included in the reference list and all listed references cited in the manuscript?
• Are the citations and references presented consistently according to the journal’s required reference style?
• Are excessive self-citation, irrelevant citation, and reliance on non-scholarly or inaccessible sources avoided?

Scope Fit and Contribution to JAEMA

Does the manuscript clearly align with the scope of the Journal of Applied Economy, Management, and Accountability (JAEMA)? The journal welcomes original research, review articles, conceptual studies, and applied studies in economics, business, management, accounting, finance, auditing, taxation, entrepreneurship, human resource management, marketing, strategic management, corporate governance, public-sector management, organizational studies, sustainability, and institutional accountability.

Does the manuscript provide a clear theoretical, empirical, methodological, practical, or policy contribution relevant to JAEMA’s readership? Does it explain how the findings advance knowledge or improve economic decision-making, managerial practice, organizational performance, financial management, accounting practice, governance, transparency, accountability, sustainability, or public policy?