Article Rejection Policy

Al Dzahab: Journal of Economics, Management, Business and Accounting is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, publication ethics, and scientific integrity. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes an initial editorial screening followed, where appropriate, by a rigorous peer-review process.

A manuscript may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process if it does not meet the journal's standards or publication requirements.

Reasons for Article Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Out of Scope

The manuscript does not fit the journal's aims and scope and does not make a significant contribution to economics, management, business, accounting, Islamic economics, finance, entrepreneurship, or related disciplines.

2. Lack of Originality or Novelty

The manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient originality, innovation, or scientific contribution and merely replicates previous studies without meaningful advancement.

3. Poor Scientific Quality

The manuscript has significant issues in research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of findings, or theoretical development that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

4. Failure to Meet Journal Formatting Requirements

The manuscript does not comply with the journal's author guidelines, including but not limited to:

  • Use of the official journal template;
  • Manuscript written in English;
  • Improper citation and referencing style;
  • Incomplete manuscript components.

5. High Similarity Index

The manuscript exceeds the journal's similarity threshold or contains evidence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text recycling.

6. Ethical Violations

The manuscript violates publication ethics, including:

  • Data fabrication or falsification;
  • Manipulation of research results;
  • Unethical research practices;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Authorship misconduct.

7. Inadequate Literature Review

The manuscript would benefit from greater engagement with recent, reputable scholarly literature to strengthen its theoretical support and academic contribution.

8. Weak Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion does not critically interpret the findings, does not link to existing literature or theory, and does not adequately support the conclusions with the research results.

9. Negative Peer Review Recommendations

If the reviewers conclude that the manuscript contains major scientific deficiencies that cannot reasonably be corrected through revision, the editorial board may reject the manuscript.

10. Failure to Submit Revision

Authors who fail to submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline without prior communication may have their manuscript rejected administratively.

11. Editorial Decision Timeline

The Editorial Board is committed to completing the editorial process promptly. Under normal circumstances, authors will receive an editorial decision or official communication regarding their manuscript within six (6) months from the date of submission. If no editorial decision, status update, or official communication has been issued within this period, authors have the right to contact the Editorial Office. If no response is received after reasonable follow-up, authors may consider the manuscript withdrawn from the journal and are free to submit it to another journal without requiring further approval from the Editorial Office.