Akrual: Jurnal Akuntansi, Ekonomi, dan Bisnis applies a peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript considered for publication.

Each submitted manuscript undergoes the following stages:

1. Initial Screening
   The editor conducts an initial screening to assess the manuscript's conformity with the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript completeness, and potential plagiarism.
2. Editorial Assessment
   Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are evaluated by the editor to determine their suitability for the peer-review process.
3. Reviewer Assignment
   Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise and competence in the subject area of the manuscript.
4. Peer Review
   The manuscript is reviewed using a blind-review system to maintain objectivity and independence. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's substance, methodology, quality of analysis, originality, relevance of references, and clarity of presentation.
5. Revision
   Based on the review results, authors may be required to make minor revisions or major revisions. Authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.
6. Editorial Decision
   The editor considers the reviewers' recommendations and the authors' revisions when making the editorial decision. Possible decisions include:
   • Accepted
   • Minor Revision
   • Major Revision
   • Rejected
7. Final Decision and Publication
   Accepted manuscripts undergo final editing, proofreading, and layout before being published in the appropriate journal issue.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained during the review process. Reviewers must not use any data, ideas, or information contained in the manuscript for personal or third-party purposes.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must notify the editor if they have any conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of their assessment. In such cases, the editor may appoint an alternative reviewer.