Presentation

Does the manuscript present a cohesive and scientifically grounded argument? Are the ideas clearly and logically organized? Does the manuscript demonstrate a meaningful contribution to the relevant field of economics, entrepreneurship, management, business, accounting, or finance?

Writing

Does the title accurately characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise, precise, academically appropriate, and easy to follow? Are economic, managerial, financial, and accounting terms used consistently and accurately?

Length

Which parts of the manuscript should be expanded, removed, condensed, summarized, or combined to improve clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution?

Title

Is the title concise and informative, accurately reflecting the main research focus, variables, or contribution? Does it avoid unnecessary words, unexplained abbreviations, and overly broad terminology?

Abstract

Does the abstract include: (1) aim/purpose of the study; (2) research design and methods; (3) key results/findings; and (4) conclusions and theoretical, managerial, economic, or policy implications?

Introduction

Does the introduction clearly describe:

• The background, research context, and significance of the study;
• Theoretical foundations and relevant prior research that establish the state of the art;
• A clearly identified research gap and explicit novelty or contribution statement;
• Research questions and/or hypotheses, where applicable;
• The conceptual or theoretical framework underlying the study;
• The approach used to address the identified research problem; and
• The objectives of the study and its relevance to economic, managerial, business, or accounting practice.

Method

• Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research objectives and questions?
• Are the research context, population, sampling techniques, sample size, data sources, and data collection procedures clearly explained, where applicable?
• Are the research instruments, operational definitions of variables, and measurement scales adequately described?
• Are the analytical techniques (e.g., regression analysis, SEM, PLS-SEM, econometric modeling, financial analysis, or qualitative analysis) appropriate and sufficiently justified?
• Are instrument validity, reliability, model assumptions, potential biases, and relevant diagnostic tests appropriately addressed?
• For quantitative studies, are model specifications, estimation procedures, statistical tests, and robustness checks adequately reported where relevant?
• For qualitative studies, are participant selection, data collection, coding procedures, interpretation, and trustworthiness clearly explained?
• For conceptual and review articles, are the theoretical approach, literature selection, analytical framework, and synthesis procedures sufficiently transparent?
• Are ethical considerations, data integrity, and methodological limitations appropriately acknowledged?
• Is the methodology sufficiently transparent to allow critical evaluation and replication where applicable?

Results and Discussion

• Are the results presented systematically using appropriate statistical evidence, analytical findings, tables, and figures with clear captions?
• Do the results directly address the research objectives, questions, and hypotheses where applicable?
• Are statistical findings interpreted accurately, including effect sizes, significance levels, confidence intervals, and explanatory or predictive measures where relevant?
• Does the discussion explain the economic, managerial, financial, entrepreneurial, or accounting significance of the findings rather than merely repeating the results?
• Are the findings critically compared with relevant theories and previous empirical studies, highlighting similarities, differences, and possible explanations?
• Are claims of causality, generalizability, and practical significance supported by the research design and available evidence?
• Does the manuscript clearly explain its theoretical contributions and practical implications for organizations, businesses, entrepreneurs, policymakers, or other relevant stakeholders?
• Are unexpected, contradictory, or statistically insignificant findings discussed appropriately?
• Are methodological limitations, potential biases, and threats to validity clearly acknowledged?
• Does the discussion identify meaningful opportunities for future research?

Conclusion

Does the conclusion:

• Directly answer the research objectives and summarize the principal findings without introducing new results;
• Clearly articulate the study's theoretical and/or practical contribution;
• Provide managerial, economic, financial, or policy recommendations where appropriate;
• Acknowledge important limitations and opportunities for future research where relevant; and
• Appear in a coherent paragraph format rather than bullet points or numbering?

Scope Fit for JEEMBA

Does the manuscript clearly align with the aims and scope of the Journal of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management Business and Accounting (JEEMBA)? Relevant areas include economics and economic development, entrepreneurship and innovation, business management, organizational behavior, human resource management, marketing, strategic management, financial management, accounting, auditing, taxation, capital markets, corporate governance, digital business, financial technology, sustainability, Islamic economics and finance, tourism economics, hospitality management, and related interdisciplinary business studies. Does the manuscript offer a meaningful theoretical, empirical, conceptual, or practical contribution to at least one of these fields?