1887

Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research

Author Guidelines - Download

SubmissionsSubmissions can only be done electronically. The submission must be e-mailed to admin@saiga.co.za and addressed to: The Editor, SA Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research.


Policies and Statements

Ethics and malpractice statement

Editor:

•Submitted manuscripts are exclusively evaluated on the basis of their academic merit and its applicability to the journal’s scope. No regard is given to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.

•The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

•Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

•The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field.

•The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published.

•The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

•Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper.

•Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be investigated, even if it is discovered in future years after publication.

•If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Reviewer:

•Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.

•Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

•Any manuscripts received for review by reviewers are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in- Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances).

•This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

•Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.

•Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

•Criticism of the content should be approach with the necessary tact and sensitivity.

•Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

•Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

•A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

•Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

•Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Auditor

•Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work.

•The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.

•Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such.

•Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

•Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

•Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited.

•Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited.

•Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

•Authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal.

•Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

•Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

•All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained.

•The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co- authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co- authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

•Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

•Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.

•Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

•Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions.

•In the case of a first decision of ‘revisions necessary’, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

•When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper.

•If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. 

Publisher

•In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work.

•The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

•The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining its own digital archive.


Author Declaration

As the author(s) of the above titled manuscript we acknowledge and declare the following as per your requirements:

•That the manuscript is submitted with the full intention of having it published in the Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research (SAJAAR).

•That we understand the reviewing and publishing process followed by SAJAAR and that we agree to submit the manuscript under these conditions and rules.

•That the manuscript constitutes original work; that other authors’ work has been quoted by applying normal practices in this regard; that we indemnify the Institute from any copyright infringement which may result from the publishing of the manuscript.

•That the manuscript has not been submitted to another journal or if it has been submitted to another journal and withdrawn or rejected, we must provide SAJAAR with the correspondence in this regard.

•That the manuscript has not been published in any form whatsoever.

•That we understand that the manuscript may not be withdrawn or submitted to another journal whilst the reviewing process is underway, unless the Editor specifically allows the author(s) to withdraw the article.

•That we agree to the conditions of payment of the linguistic and page fees.


Editorial and review board

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error