چالش‌های فرایند داوری همتا و انتشار مقاله در نشریه‌های حسابداری و مالی

Abstract
Purpose: The peer review system serves as the paramount gatekeeper of scholarly communication, fundamentally safeguarding the quality, validity, and scientific credibility of published research. Within the crucial and highly sensitive fields of Accounting and Finance, where academic outputs directly inform educational curricula, shape organizational policy-making, and guide critical corporate decision-making, the reliability and ethical integrity of the peer review process are particularly significant. Despite this indispensable role, the system globally, and specifically within domestic Iranian journals, has been subject to persistent and escalating criticism from the academic community. Common complaints frequently relate to issues of excessive temporal delays in the review cycle, feedback that is often insufficiently constructive or inconsistent, a demonstrable lack of transparency throughout the process, and notable breakdowns in communication between journal editorial offices and contributing authors. These systemic shortcomings not only impede the timely dissemination of new scientific knowledge but also pose a considerable risk of eroding researchers' confidence in the national scholarly publishing ecosystem. The primary objective of the present study was, therefore, to systematically identify, categorize, and empirically prioritize the central operational and systemic challenges experienced by scholars in the peer review and article publication process across Iranian academic journals of accounting and finance. By grounding its analysis in the direct experiences of 185 researchers, the study aims to illuminate specific systemic weaknesses and establish an empirical foundation for targeted policy and procedural reforms.
Methodology: This research adopted a comprehensive mixed-methods design with sequential qualitative and quantitative phases. The qualitative phase involved the content analysis of twenty-five documents (including articles, regulations, and reports), which led to the identification of twenty-seven components of peer review challenges. These components were grouped into four overarching constructs: Publication Timing, Process Management, Quality of Review, and Communication and Responsiveness. The content validity of these constructs was rigorously established by eight experts using Lawshe’s CVR method. In the quantitative phase, a questionnaire based on these validated constructs was distributed among a sample of 185 Iranian accounting and finance researchers. Data analysis included Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in LISREL to confirm strong construct validity and reliability. Crucially, given the confirmed non-normality of the data, the Friedman Test for K related samples was utilized to definitively prioritize the four challenges based on their perceived severity and impact.
Findings: The statistical analysis established that researchers perceive substantial and statistically significant obstacles across the four identified dimensions, with the Friedman Test confirming a clear and significant difference in the priority (severity) of the four constructs. The findings revealed that the most pressing concerns are predominantly operational and managerial, rather than solely focused on the content of feedback. The top priority concern was identified as Publication Timing (Rank 1, Mean Rank: 4.00). This represents the most critical challenge, encompassing issues like unpredictable and excessive delays in review decisions (often exceeding typical turnaround times), along with frustrating uncertainty regarding final publication schedules. This systemic inefficiency is the primary source of researcher anxiety and significantly compromises productivity. The second major challenge was Process Management (Rank 2, Mean Rank: 2.62). This factor encapsulates structural flaws and ethical dilemmas related to the macro-level organizational handling of submissions, including inconsistent and arbitrary application of editorial guidelines, perceived contradictions between official journal policies and subjective editorial practices, and a lack of accountability from managing editors. Conversely, Quality of Review (Rank 3, Mean Rank: 1.78) addressed concerns such as the provision of non-scientific reasons for rejection, vague or unconstructive reviewer comments, and the insufficient utilization of multiple referees with adequate subject expertise. Finally, Communication and Responsiveness (Rank 4, Mean Rank: 1.60) was the lowest-ranked concern, highlighting administrative weaknesses such as inadequate replies to author queries and the absence of transparent communication channels for real-time status updates. Overall, the hierarchical ranking confirmed that time-related and managerial flaws are the most critical impediments to authors' experience and trust in the system.
Conclusion: This study confirms the urgent need for a governance-focused reform in the peer review process of Iranian accounting and finance journals. The empirical evidence from the Friedman Test clearly establishes that the most pressing issues are operational and time-related flaws (Publication Timing and Process Management). These deficiencies threaten both scientific rigor and procedural fairness. To address these critical challenges, journals must strengthen their governance structures, ensuring stricter oversight and accountability by academic authorities. Resource allocation must be strategically targeted to address the time-related crisis (Rank 1). Furthermore, mandatory reviewer training, covering both technical expertise and ethical standards, is essential to elevate the quality of feedback and address issues ranked third. Ultimately, reforming the peer review system is fundamental for enhancing the scientific credibility of Iranian research, restoring scholarly trust, and accelerating the alignment of domestic publishing practices with rigorous international standards.