Science method

Auditing - Science method

Explore the latest questions and answers in Auditing, and find Auditing experts.
Questions related to Auditing
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
1 answer
What are the current research areas in :
1. Management Information Systems
2. Information systems auditing science
for next 3 years ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Blockchain, AR, IoT
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
Hi everyone, asking for a colleague here
they recieved an accept from an editor and a very small request to to revise something
once they did that and submitted the article fell with another editor who rejected it outright
the paper was with this journal for 6.5 months.
any idea how to proceed with an appeal for a springer journal?
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with Rodney Duffett that appealing is mandatory but it is very unlikely the editor would reverse their decision.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
when the editor requests a major revision in a scientific article. does he take the decision of direct acceptance after review without going back to the reviewers?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for your answer, but I inform you that more than 15 days ago the article is still with the editor, it has not been sent to the reviwres.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
11 answers
Hi.
Wish to start Digital Auditing research group from different perspectives,its new area to do research a lot. So if anyone interested kindly join.
Thank you .
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you all. Will update soon.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
I have been trying to login to submission site of Journal of General Management. Despite entering the correct login credentials I am not able to get through.
I tried resetting the password, however to no avail.
Is anybody facing similar problem or have encountered this issue in the past?
If yes, kindly help me.
Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
Done that Prof-Dr-Ahmed Al-Baidhani أ. د. احمد البيضاني on July 18. However I have not yet received a solution.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
1 answer
I want to include the M062X functional instead of B3LYP.  But, in my Gaussian it is not available. How, to include or add it in Gaussian?
Relevant answer
Answer
In method section use customized or other. And add M062X in additional keyword section.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
The revised version underwent a pilot survey followed by a reliability test after a validation process employing face and content validity. Cronbach's Alpha is one of the options for measuring the reliability of a scale for a tool like a Likert Scale. What about a tool with questions/items on a nominal scale?
Best regards.
Relevant answer
Answer
Here are some references for LCA:
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis with applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Wiley.
Clogg, C. C. (1995). Latent Class Models. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Plenum.
Dayton, C. M. (1998). Latent class scaling analysis [Sage university papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-126]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Langeheine, R., & Rost, J. (Eds.) (1988). Latent trait and latent class models. New York: Plenum.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis [Sage university papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-064]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.
Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. DOI: 10.1037/tps0000176
Rost, J., & Langeheine, R. (Eds.) (1997). Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.
Examples of software programs for LCA are Mplus and Latent Gold. There are also packages./macros available for running LCA in R and SAS.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
14 answers
Is it OK to send email to journal for extension request for a revision?
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree that it is certainly possible, especially given that the period given is short as Michel Charifzadeh says. I agree with the point also made that giving a reason is very important - some journals are very strict (as mentioned by Vishwa Nadham Nadiminti ) but some are more understanding. In general, I have found them to be more understanding in the last two years - they often said to reviewers that a longer time (they give an extension) is permitted because of delays due to COVID. I would think they would grant these to authors in the same way.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
5 answers
Hello,
I had a major revision paper in Q2 journal and it was holding with the editor. Please, how can I resolve this issue?
I tried to send to them several emails without any reply. Please, how can I resolve the issue raise by them?
Relevant answer
Answer
please send them a reminder, and also let them know the import of the publication to you
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
I wonder if I should wait for acknowledgement from the journal and comment from the reviewer or editor or just resend my revision?
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree that it depends on the changes you propose. I find if I want to make small changes, as you say, to enhance the presentation, it may be possible to do it in the “proofing” stage or if it is substantial, may require editorial approval. That often will be unlikely as it would be only if the meanin
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
Once revision is completed and acceptance recommendation is given by Academic editor at Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (Hindawi), the status pending approval took one month and fifteen days. When I wrote to the journals, they told me that the manuscript is currently being reviewed by in-house staff. What does this emply?
Relevant answer
Answer
To me that would mean the administrative staff (eg clerks) who do not have a specific background in the content. They check the manuscript for the format, references and so on but do not evaluate the content/ideas of the paper.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
Why are there no standards for auditing in the IT environment?
Relevant answer
IT audit aims to assess the internal control structure's design, efficiency, effectiveness, security points, etc. while financial audit aims to assess whether the financial statements present fairly the entity's financial position, results of operations, cash flows, etc. and whether they are in accordance with the respective standards. That's why there are standards for the financial statements evaluations.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
5 answers
I have submitted paper in one of hindawi's journal. I have completed all revision. The academic editor made his recommendation. The status under pending approval took one month. Why so late? Why happen like this.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello, again, Muhidin Tahir
I should add that I have waiting periods similar to Kedar Vijay Marulkar but note that many journals that I send to in the last few years, the mean decision time is advertised on the website, and is an important consideration when choosing between journals for me.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
25 answers
I submitted a paper (meta-analysi) to a journal and it was sent for peer review the next day. After 6 weeks I got a decision to reject it though the editor-in-chief acknowledged that the peer review was positive!! in fact the two peer reviewers had only minor comments that should have led to minor revision rather than rejectio. the EIC justified the decision by stating the paper did not fall within the scope of the journal (yes; after been sent for peer review) and that they had more important papers to publish, and that they would not accept a revision of the manuscript. They did not reply to my email I sent to express my discontent and frustration. Is there any explanation other than conspiracy?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Prof. Loay H Abdelnour,
The statistic given by Prof. Aref Wazwaz must make you not worried about. On the other hand, the reasons given by Prof. Suzy Lidstrom are reasonable to be considered. Finally, as our colleagues Prof. Ahmed T. Hussein & Prof. Mustafa Ali Khan-Hussaini said, I advise you to go directly to another Scopus-indexed journal.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
8 answers
Can somebody advise me on the long delaying processing of manuscripts submitted to Springer journals? It took nearly 1 year after the first revision and I am not getting any updates now. Is it worth to withdraw the paper?
Pls advise.
Relevant answer
Answer
You ask a very reasonable question. The answer depends on the journal you selected. The dilemma is if you withdraw now, will you have a similar wait with the next journal you send to as well. The so-called bigger and more famous publishers typically have better outcomes in this regard but some even within the same publisher, some journals are good and some are less reliable.
My advice is this:
1 keep waiting
2 next time, before you send, hopefully find a journal that says their average decision/publication time is ”x” and that is satisfactory to you.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
10 answers
I am looking for a co-author and I wondering if you may be interested. The article was accepted in September 2021 for publication after peer review, but I don't have too much time to complete the process. Title of the Manuscript: Russia, Armed Groups and the Central African conflict African Journal of Political Science and International Relations Manuscript Number AJPSIR/10.09.21/1368 Current Status: First Revision Reminder
Relevant answer
Answer
I saw your question, if not too late, I would gladly participate. In addition, I could contribute to the content of the article.
Regards, Sergey
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
All Respected Sir/Madam are cordially requested to participate the suvey and forward to your friends & others for the betterment of mankind
Relevant answer
Answer
Many thanks
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
Hi, everyone,
I revised a scale. 103 filled the scale. The internal consistency reliability score of the two sub-scales are 0.70 and 0.74. However, the internal consistency reliability of the total score is only 0.45.
Should I collect more data? Or, does it mean the two subscales are independent and it is not appropriate to calculate the total score?
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
Dps Samanta Thanks!
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
Hi, everyone,
I am using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity of a revised scale.
Seventy-five students filled the scale 4 times (day1, day2, day3, day4). May I analyze the total 75 * 4 scale data? If not, which one is better? Data in the first time?
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, you can use models of longitudinal CFA for that purpose. Your sample size is fairly small. However, having more than one time point may actually help compensate for the relatively small sample. This is because the additional time points provide additional information without necessarily increasing the number of parameters to be estimated dramatically. This is because you may be able to set at least some of the measurement-related parameters (loadings, intercepts, etc.) to be invariant across time without a loss in model fit. This is something that should be tested though by comparing nested models with different levels of longitudinal measurement equivalence/invariance. See, for example
Geiser, C. (2021). Longitudinal structural equation modeling with Mplus: A latent state-trait perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
18 answers
Hello everyone,
I've been looking for recent regulations and matters that are linked to auditing to discuss for my research thesis. I could really use any suggestion regarding auditing, audit market, audit trends...
Thank you.
Best.
Relevant answer
Answer
Audits are done on electronic medium. Auditors can download all population and check the the whole population if they want to. Invoices and materials can be stored on electric medium. This is a great advancement in accounting. Walk through tests, substantial test all can be done in electronic medium. Having said that, as auditors we have another challenge. It is the authorization process. Now authorizations should be done electronically. Auditors make sure that the electronic authorizations are valid. Here we need the IT specialists to make sure the authorization belong to the authorized people. Passwords are issued centrally and data entry and approvals are done by the correct people, segregation of duties are observed. Here we can utilize data analytics. In short, auditors must now be trained on data analytics and IT securities. That`s the challenge for us auditors.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
15 answers
i. Although the suggested correction was very less raised by the 2 reviewers in their 2nd revision, why does the editor asked for major revision?
ii. Why does the editor has given me clues to solve each of the raised questions? Does it mean the learned editor is going to accepting my paper after updating the manuscript based on given suggestions by the reviewers?
Relevant answer
Answer
Major revision is required when significant issues are raised by reviewers
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
“Early auditing theories were constructed by observing the practices of auditors”. Explain what type of theory construction is this? List the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
Relevant answer
Answer
Try to make a SWOT analysis, this is a first step before moving on to building a theory.
good luck
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
33 answers
Dear Scholars,
We had submitted a manuscript on 25 Apr 2020 (please see the attachment 1) titled “Assessing the impact of Pakistani females' religious beliefs on sports by using Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire” to the Journal of Religion & Health for possible publication. Within time spend of 2 years we got not less than 7 revisions (please see the attachment 1) on different time and almost different comments every time. After almost 2nd revision we used MDPI service and spent 1600 CHF (please see attachment 5) for language correction. The latest comments sent by the editor were some statistical changings and recommendation of grammatical review (please see attachments 2 and 3). We used their recommended service and spent almost US$345 (please see attachment 4).
We submitted our last revision on Jan-2022 and waiting for the possibly acceptance email for 3 months (because last revision was just about the language and some minor changings in statistical analysis). And today we just got the rejection (please see the attachment 1) email from the Editor-in-Chief Journal of Religion and Health.
Though the outcome of the process is very disappointing because we used a lot of time, energy and money on the demand of journal, I would like to know from you scholars if there is any academic way to response such kind of journals? It’s not about only our paper, but this effort can also save the time and energy (may be money) of other scholars like you.
I really appreciate your understanding and suggestions.
Regards
Rizwan
Professor (Associate)
Hubei Normal University, China.
Relevant answer
Answer
A lot of Journals are not looking for a more scientific article. It is looking for a business. Why they did not reject the research paper in beginning.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
7 answers
Hi everyone, I'm making an index that requires the use of protected area categories to be ranked in terms of their abilities to protect threatened species.
The categories are:
  • Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve.
  • Category Ib: Wilderness Area.
  • Category II: National Park.
  • Category III: Natural Monument or Feature.
  • Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area.
  • Category V: Protected Landscape/Seascape.
  • Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources.
In terms of actual biodiversity conservation the order of these categories seems to be a bit arbitrary. How would you rank the IUCN Protected Area Categories from highest to lowest protection for threatened species? I have searched numerous sources and all of them seem to have had the same complaint, and suggest the categories should be revised, but don't actually provide any recommendations on the proper order.
Any help appreciated!
Relevant answer
Answer
I think that is going to be an impossible task because the ability of each category to protect a threatened species is going to be entirely dependent on the laws (and the enforcement of those laws) that apply to each category in each country as well as the species in question and the threats that it faces.
For example, if you have a rare bat in a national park in the United States it is going to be protected from being killed outright, but if the biggest threat to that bat is human disturbance in caves during sensitive seasons then the National Park designation is irrelevant unless there are specific regulations for that park that keep people out of specific caves at specific times of the year. Even then, unless active management is taking place for that species (posting signs at caves or constructing bat gates), then the regulation won't do much.
Or how about a fire-dependent threatened species in a U.S. wilderness area that just isn't burning as much as it was in the past and in which prescribed fire is not really possible since you can't easily develop firelines? In that case the species may be better off in a more managed protected area.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
I’ve been asked to revise a chapter in a textbook. The chapter was written by another author. In revision, is it acceptable to retain any of the original author‘s exact work, or does it need to be completely rewritten in original language? I’ve only revised my own chapters before, and no one seems to know how this is properly handled.
Relevant answer
Answer
It is revised by adopting a network for evaluation and review that includes ideas, documentation, standards of scientific documentation and referrals, as well as the formalities adopted in the collective book.@
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
12 answers
I intend to use the composite variable in regression analysis. I want to develop a composite variable using three variables. One of them is a dummy variable, one variable has values ranging from 0 to 50, and one variable has quite large values.
The study is in the field of accounting and economics.
I really appreciate your valuable insights.
Relevant answer
Answer
What is your purpose for using the composite variable, or is your intended composite variable is sub-dependent variables.
Good luck with your work.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
What can be objectively defined as measurable and auditable standard
1 Question is justifiable and essential Xray chest requests in children less than 3years presenting to Emergency department expressed as a percentage?
Relevant answer
Answer
According to the disease condition of the child
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
5 answers
Dear All scientists,
From last few decades the geoscientific research is growing and probably have high impact of the society. we have highlighted every aspects of the earth science. We as a nation, never gives any values to our geodiversity of Pakistan. The science of geoconservation is emerging and novel. If we look into some real figures of the world, the number of geological sites in the Global UNESCO Geoparks Network is brought to 169 in 44 countries. All sites are highly funded for research and protection.
Unfortunately, despite of high research in Geology, Pakistan is not included in the list compared with even under developed countries, although we had have very interesting geological sites that need conversation and global ranking.
Recently, PM Pakistan inaugurate heritage trail in Salt Range national parks, this is inline with our recent finding on the geoheritage of Salt range. I am attaching the publication. We identified and ranked the Salt Range Geosite based on the new methods of geoheritage. This is really great initiative for geoturism in Pakistan. The geoscientist can promote the real geoturism by identifying the site of geological importance.
Currently, I am working on the very important and least studied geological aspect of Hingol National Park. Our Paper is in the second revision, still need very interesting things to be included. If any one have idea or similar research interest we need to collaborates inn this regard to highlights this important geosite in Pakistan. My official email is Yaseengeo@awkum.edu.pk.
Any suggestion or input will be highly acknowledged.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Regards,
Muhammad Yaseen
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you, Dr Aleem Zahid sb, for your interest and future research collaborations.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
9 answers
Hi, I submitted my revised paper in a journal after making major revision. First status was awaiting reviewer score then awaiting AE recommendation decision and today again showing status awaiting reviewer score. What I can conclude for these status?
Relevant answer
Answer
That you are checking your MS status too often :) Seriously though, this could mean so many things that attempts to guess and infer anything about future decisions is not a good use of your time IMO.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
7 answers
  1. Reviewer1 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
  2. Reviewer2 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
  3. Reviewer3 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
  4. Reviewer4 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
  5. Reviewer6 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)------------------The above is the conclusion of the preliminary review of an article. The same six reviewers are judging the fate of a PhD. I don't know how he is feeling?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello, Chio Chio
Some reviewers can be less polite and useful, but they are trying to help copy and give useful indicators for how to improve their work. reviewers اhelp their friends during their experiences research.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
I have a paper that recommended minor revision, and the reviewers ask me to provide the control variable for my model. But I don’t have the model's data anymore, so I cant add control variables to my result. What can I respond to this issues reviewers comments? Any idea? Any good logical response?
Relevant answer
Answer
I don't know what kind of data/model you are having but still you can justify your results that adding firm/industry-specific characteristics would not change the results significantly. Find some studies which used this logic and cite them as well to support your argument.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
13 answers
I would love to hear your reactions to the following assertion:
The open science movement has some potential to reduce scientific misconduct.
Pre-registration might help some. Making research data more publicly available might help some. Any of the open science initiatives might help to some degree. But the problem of scientific misconduct is not going to be eliminated or even substantially reduced until the most powerful incentives supporting the behavior – including tenure, promotion, and grants – are revised to promote integrity as well as productivity.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dr Thomas E. Becker . It could be reduced the misconduct. But It has other advantages: it increases productivity in an era of tight budgets. Open science results in great innovation potential and increased consumer choice from public research. Open science promotes citizens' trust in science. Greater citizen engagement leads to active participation in scientific experiments and data collection. See the link: https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/open-science.htm
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
13 answers
Hello everyone.
I am in an incredibly bizarre situation. I will not mention the names of people I communicated with, but I will mention the publisher and the journal because I feel like I am experiencing a lame scam.
Earlier this year, I submitted my article to a journal called the International Journal of Virtual and Augmented Reality (IJVAR), and the publisher is IGI Global.
I communicated with someone from the journal but didn't receive any response after two weeks. I tried to view my submission on the IGI Global website, and it has a technical issue, in which it shows from a drop-down-menu that I have (1) article; however, when I click on it, the page displays a message that I do not have any submitted articles.
After a month, I sent an email to withdraw my submission because there was no communication and due to the website's issue.
After another month, an editor from the journal reached out to me to say that he is interested in my article and will begin the revision process. I told him that I had requested to withdraw my submission, and he accepted it and said that he is a new editor who is still figuring things out. It is important to emphasize that I finally got a response after I sent an email, and it turns out that I was emailing a journal that was going through a change of editors. Nobody from that journal nor any employee from IGI Global was responding to my emails.
In October, the same editor sent me an email telling me to work on revising my article that's on IGI's website. I sent an email reminding him that I had already informed him that he had accepted my withdrawal. But I did not receive anything back, and I feel that it is much easier to communicate with ghosts and summon spirits than communicating with anyone from IGI.
Now, I just received an email from the Development Editor for IGI Global congratulating me that my article got accepted and that I need to work on the revisions and make the final edits before 28 December. I was not even able to view my article, let alone edit it! I sent a response email but didn't hear back. I emailed IGI's editors' email address and heard nothing from them. Could it be they're ignoring my response emails to forcefully publish my article? Such a ridiculous mess.
Relevant answer
Answer
Good question
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
18 answers
Hi,
Yesterday, I received a response of one mine paper with the concept of "major revisions". The paper is about engineering education and m-learning (a methodology). There are 20 points that the reviewers indicate me, some of them are basically impossible to address because are focused on the methodology that was made. Even for the paper that is a methodology, they indicate me to make a review as a "systematic literature review" employing PRISMA criteria and stuff like that.
PD: The paper was presented of a Q1 journal of education (Springer).
So, my questions are: How to deal with major revisions in a paper?, How to address the comments of the reviewers?, and How to make the revisions of the paper consistenly?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best regards,
Jonathan
Relevant answer
Answer
Try to respond as many as possible and provide an explanation why impossible to respond to other issues mentioned by the reviewer. In case of unsuccess, you will have a better manuscript that you can resubmit to another journal. Good luck
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
25 answers
In one of Springer's journals, I have responded to a major revision. Since that I'm keenly tracking the progress of my manuscript. About every 10 days or two weeks, the revise date is changing, however, the manuscript status hasn't changed "Under review" I am waiting for 4 months. And I think it is very very long time. What should I do in this case. By the way the first decision was after 45 days.
Looking eagerly for your contribution.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you dear Vincent O. Nyangaresi .I contact the editor and really got a fast response.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
13 answers
I am looking for a native English speaker to edit my revised manuscript. it is my pleasure to have him/her as co-authors.
Relevant answer
Answer
Elham Sheykhsaran: I may be able to assist. You are welcome to check my profile and contact me by PM.
Leo
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
manuscript revision related question, seeking insights from experienced scholars.
Relevant answer
Answer
agree with Dr Sarfaraz about the number of reviewers
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
In major revision for publication of my paper, one of the points is " Identify the factors that make the accuracy reach 100% for both datasets. How to explain these points in the discussion. Kindly guide me.
Relevant answer
An example of such point could be increasing in accuracy with increasing sample size, reaching accuracy at 100. The following paper talks about this sample size effects:
Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models
DRB Stockwell, AT Peterson - Ecological modelling, 2002 - Elsevier
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
14 answers
Scopus releases the list of scopus indexed journals periodically. Whether do the Scopus revise every year or twice in a year?
Which month do they revise exactly?
Whether the revised list appear in the Scopus home site immediately or not?
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree well with professor Ognjen Eric.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
Now almost all big publishing houses have started Open or Gold access schemes where we, the scientific authors, need to pay thousands of USD or EUROs or GBPs as article processing charges (APC). So, the authors are the consumers of the journals or publishing houses paying for their impact factors.
The publishing houses have employed non-technical or non-subject specific editorial support staff for checking articles' physical issues, not contents.
We all are facing a delay-dealing process by these staff before the actual scientific review start.
I/we can share some of my/our experiences:
Case-1. One journal has returned our article after five days of submission. We had uploaded two figures. Figure-1 was PRISMA and figure-2 was results derived from the study. Under the online submission declaration section, it asked to upload PRISMA (we marked as figure 1 with legend PRISMA). We did that. Under the figure category, we uploaded figure 2. We could not upload figure 1 again as it was already uploaded under the declaration section, which was mandatory to upload. We had a legend in manuscript figure 1 with PRISMA. We have also mentioned in the letter stating the problem.
The cause of return was figure 1 missing. The person who read it could not even distinguish by figure legends.
Case 2. One journal has returned our article before sending it to the editor/ reviewers. The reason was that by mistake, we wrote 'conclusion' instead of 'conclusions'.
Case 3. One journal from has returned our article after almost four weeks. The cause? Why did we add ethical issues under the method section and again under the declaration section? However, it asked to add ethical permission under the declaration. We have detailed descriptions of ethical issues under the method section.
Cases can go on and on.
In all cases, these minor technical issues could be easily fixed after the reviewer's comments during the revision of the manuscript.
The scientists plan for research projects, apply for funding, including APC charges, conduct research, write articles, and submit to journals for publication and publishing by paying the APC. As the consumer, I am losing time for this silly problem that we can quickly fix during the revision of the manuscript. We shall we be always at the receiving end? Why do the publishing houses exploit us even through these silly issues and delay-dealing process?
Relevant answer
Answer
Predatory publishers take advantage of the Open Access business model to charge writers publishing fees while falsifying or ignoring peer-review and editorial services. Because of a few bad apples, writers and readers are skeptical about Open Access publications, believing they are not peer-reviewed and are of poor quality.
Best Regards
Dr. Fatemeh Khozaei
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
1 answer
I am new to molecular dynamics. I am currently using the Material Studio to prepare the data file and then convert the car.file into a LAMMPS data file.
But when I use the amorphous cell, some molecules are actually across the boundary of the cell.
I want to confine the molecules inside the cell boundary.
Or I want to know how to make the cell bigger.
I know I can add a vacuum or revise the length of the cell but that only add space for one side.
Appreciation for any response
Relevant answer
Answer
All the molecules are actually inside the simulation cell. A few of them seemed to be out of the box, but due to periodic boundary conditions (PBC), they are actually present inside the simulation cell. If you want to see it, then change the display style lattice to the In-cell option.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
29 answers
I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. Therefore, I believe that the article can be accepted.` while reviewer#2 `The authors considered the Reviewer comments very good, ending in a good submission which is very helpful for other authors.` Also got several minor comments and resubmitted the paper anticipating the acceptance. after a month i got major revision (I was surprised). The reason is that reviewer#2 refers back to the same old comments that he gave at the major revision stage (He just copied and pasted alll the comments mentioned in the major revision stage) saying `I do not see that you considered my comments, please review them and finalize the document` . As I believe that there is a confusion regarding the decision and comments from reviewer#2, we have contacted the journal and waiting for a reply (it is almost a week as of 12th October 2021). any Ideas on this matter, what should i do next if a reply doesn't show up? It would be extremely helpful if you could share your experience, if avail.
Relevant answer
Answer
You are in a no win situation -- your best bet is to accept the major revision with grace and complete it to the best of your abilities. This sort of issue does happen, I once had a paper accepted by an A* journal with minor revisions -- once the revisions were done and the revised paper submitted, it was rejected by an editor.
I tell my thesis students that they need to learn how to live with both fair and unfair rejection and in some cases just move on to another journal.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
15 answers
I submitted one of the research papers of mine in a journal by Emrald last year in August 2020. Till now I have done two revisions and last revision was submitted in April 2021. I have been waiting since then for the decision by editors and it has been a long and a demotivating process since then. I have published two more papers between time period But, regarding this paper there is no communication from the editors. I finally decided to ask them and they said we are reviewing the revisions. Its been more than 1 year. What should I do in this case? Should I withdraw it instead?
Relevant answer
Answer
I am in a similar situation. Thanks for highlighting Aruditya Jasrotia
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
9 answers
After a new taxonomy revision or new classification has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal, is it necessary for the taxonomic status of the species recognized in the article to be re-evaluated by the IUCN? Is the scope of the IUCN to review and assess taxonomy of species?
Relevant answer
Answer
It should be critical taxonomists maintain their independence from the conservation community including IUCN.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
7 answers
We, as authors, are expected to follow certain ethical codes laid down by journals. For instance, authors can not submit the same article in more than one journal.
On the other hand, there are hardly any ethics for journals and editors. Journals rarely make the first decision within the ‘average’ first decision period mentioned in the journal's guidelines. Similarly, some manuscripts remain under review for more than a year at times, and journals reject an article after keeping it under review for such long times. By the time such decision is made, the article already loses its relevance.
I want to stress that a line of ethics shall be drawn for journals and editors as well.
1. There must be a maximum time limit for making the first decision and also for review. Two weeks are enough for making the first decision; the editor must go through the article and make the first decision in this period (If an article has some worth, send it to review else desk reject it). For peer reviews, I understand that getting peer reviews is a timely process, but there still must be an upper limit.
2. I have experienced that revisions are often sent to new reviewers who suggest additional new changes and sometimes recommend rejection also. Revisions should be sent to original reviewers, and in case original reviewers are not available, then the editor must make the decision on the basis of revisions recommended by the original reviewers and the changes made by the authors.
There may be other points also that fellow Research Gate members may highlight.
In my opinion, until journals do not follow such ethics, I do not see any harm in sending the same manuscript for consideration to multiple journals. A very delayed rejection decision renders the manuscript useless. Why should authors be hard done by? The journals and editors do have some ethics to follow too.
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes that is standard practice. All references should be cited properly as well.
For a good article research question the key attributes are:
(i) Being specific
(ii) Being originality and
(iii) having general relevance to the wider scientific community.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
1 answer
Prior
1) evidence of at least a publication in a high-impact Journal indexed in Scopus or ABS or ABDC. This is to certify writing, grammatical and analytical skills.and/or
2) Strong statistical background in factorial analysis or research methodology in social sciences.
I have been in auditing profession since 1990 and supervised fifty final year undergraduate accounting /auditing research projects.
For the next level, reach me here or udohsalem@utg.edu.gm
Relevant answer
Answer
follower
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
35 answers
About two years ago, I have submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. After a couple of months of the peer review process, the response was “major revision has been requested”. I made the necessary adjustments and resubmitted it again. The Journal's editor responded that my manuscript requires minor revision. Well, the decision was <<"Revise for Editor Only'' he claimed that revision should be quick and it will not undergo the entire review process>>. Again, I made the required edits in order to make the manuscript acceptable for publication. Afterward, I resubmitted it. It is the day 120 and the status is "With Editor". In fact, I did send two emails to the editorial team to update the status. Their response to both emails was the same, saying that they contacted the editor to accelerate the process.
Dear readers, I need to have a piece of advice: what to do as a next step?
Thank you in advance,
Bassam
Relevant answer
Answer
This kind of situation can be frustrating, however, I would encourage you to keep calm and focus on other things while awaiting the editor's decision. Sorry about this experience
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
15 answers
Union Cabinet has approved the revised new definition of the MSME. The MSMEs have been redefined on the basis of investment limit and turnover size. Earlier only investment in plant and machinery was considered for defining MSMEs. How this change in definition criteria going to help MSMEs grow in India?
Relevant answer
Answer
Revised Classification applicable w.e.f 1st July 2020Composite Criteria: Investment in Plant & Machinery/equipment and Annual TurnoverClassificationMicroSmallMediumManufacturing Enterprises and Enterprises rendering ServicesInvestment in Plant and Machinery or Equipment: Not more than Rs.1 crore and Annual Turnover ; not more than Rs. 5 croreInvestment in Plant and Machinery or Equipment: Not more than Rs.10 crore and Annual Turnover ; not more than Rs. 50 croreInvestment in Plant and Machinery or Equipment: Not more than Rs.50 crore and Annual Turnover ; not more than Rs. 250 crore
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
30 answers
Hi all
i am looking for a new and interesting topic for my new research. Please. if you have any i will much appreciate that. Thank you in advance
Relevant answer
Answer
Forensic accounting
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
5 answers
The economic development that the world is witnessing and the resulting environmental and economic damage to health and the environment and health, pay us to put the shapes below:
Relevant answer
Answer
Health security politics is a burgeoning and contested field of analysis and practice with the potential to affect security thinking beyond its own parameters.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
Can I have some examples of study case in auditing want to see how to do the auditing report
Relevant answer
Answer
Based on Tally or ERP you can do
or
OK software do it
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
17 answers
Dear RG community,
Because I'm currently working on a paper that should be finished soon, I would like to know what approximately is the average/maximum number of words for a scientific article in the field of financial accounting e.g. for journals as the Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance or the jounal of Accounting and Business Research.
Thank you for your information.
Relevant answer
Answer
accounting journals are
IJCR
IJFA
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
An intent to understand, evaluate and assess the academic curriculum module of Building Services in relation to the Architecture Profession. We have witnessed to be following a Course Curriculum that has seen minimal revisions and upgradations. The Academic Curriculum is approx. 25-30 Years. It is in subsequent demand of revisions with Updates Trends and Techniques to have an efficient Building Metabolism. And, these questionnaires will help in bringing us an inch closer to integrate the curriculum with trending practices.
Relevant answer
Answer
Building functions can not be executed properly without building services. Day by day the mode of building services are changing. According to the digitalization, some services are extremely energy oriented, some of them are depended on context, even climate. To understand one of the core aspects for building design , evaluation and assessment, the academic curriculum module of Building Services , I think a mandatory subject to study.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
24 answers
I am revising a manuscript I submitted to a reputable journal with nice impact factor. I came to realise that two of the reviewers have opposing recommendations.
What do you suggest I do or how do I respond to those recommendations from peer reviewers?
Relevant answer
Answer
In this case I agree with Jaroslav's Dvorak's opinion.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
7 answers
Dear all,
My paper revision is in progress. However, now I know that another author as the corresponding author must be added to the manuscript. But I can,t know how I can add another new author as correspond at this phase of paper preparation. Can anyone help me with this issue?
Best regards
Nasiri
Relevant answer
Answer
Normally, there is only one corresponding author. But you can add another author to the paper as you suggested during the revision process, to attribute that some of the revision is contributed by the additional author.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
15 answers
the paper was considered for publication after this revision in a respective journal
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi. By editing proof services locally or using the net.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
21 answers
I submitted a manuscript to a journal using scholarone manuscript system, and later got a decision of major revision. After making revisions according to the reviewers' comments, I submitted the revised manuscript a few days ago. Initially the status was "awaiting admin checklist", and then changed to "under review". Today, I noticed that the status was then changed to "awaiting reviewer assignment".
I assume the revised MS would automatically go to the same AE and reviewers. Does this mean that the previous reviewers have declined to look at my responses? If they opt out, does it mean my article needs to go through another new round of review?
Relevant answer
Answer
May be editor wants to send the paper for one more peer review
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
I want to use the revised Math Anxiety Rating Scale questionnaire for a study for my masters thesis but am unsure how to access it. Who do I contact?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear @Leslie would this manuscript help your cause? "Confirmatory Factor Analysis Of The Math Anxiety Rating Scale–Revised"
I've attached the manuscript herewith
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
Hello everyone!
I hope you are doing great during these difficult times.
I submitted an article in July of last year and got major revisions. It is more than five months since then, and I have not received a response from the journal. Have you also experienced something similar while working with journals? Even after the initial review, is it customary for journals to delay the review process this long?
Thanks.
Relevant answer
Answer
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
18 answers
I submitted my research article to T&F journal. After two revisions, the paper went under review. Now the review status changed to "Awaiting RE Decision" . What does it mean??
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Bhuvaneswari Anbalagan When a paper is under review, it meant dat such paper is still awaiting competent reviewer
… Read more
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
10 answers
new environment works need new procedures ,the electronic companies need modern auditing method
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
7 answers
I joint the photonic west in 2021 and my manuscript was published and now can be found on SPIE digital library. Can I publish the manuscript on nature communication or other journals? will they consider it as dual publication? Thanks.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Stephan Chang thank you for your interesting technical question. I my opinion this is only possible when your paper published in the SPIE digital library is more like a conference Abstract. For more potentially useful answers please have a look at the following closely related RG threads:
If research is published in conference proceedings, can it still be published in journals?
(260 answers)
and
Should the conference abstracts published on indexed journals be taken into account as a publication?
(58 answers)
If you manuscript has already been peer-reviewed by SPIE photonic west than it cannot be published again elsewhere.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
2 answers
After submitting the 1 or 2 revisions also many of the Editors will reject the manuscripts without having a valid reason. If the author has submitted the revisions for reviewer-1 and reviewer-2, what is the necessity to review the article by the 3rd reviewer? How the Editor will make a decision only on the basis of 3rd reviewer comments? If the submitted revisions are not up to the mark, then there is a scope for the reviewer-1 and reviewer-2 to ask for one more revision or suggest to reject the article.
Still, this kind of problem is facing the authors.
Relevant answer
Answer
I have faced similar problem. I think it depends on the policy of the idividual journal house in relation to the editorial board of the journal. I think the only solution is that the authors should read the policy or policies of the journal very well and abide with it. The reviewer has the final say. I had an occassion to argue withe the editorial board of a journal house and when we could not agree I withdrew my paper.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
I am looking for the Child version of ICG to update my French book on Grief and prolonged grief.
Relevant answer
Answer
I' m so sorry to make you wasting your time. Maybe you should not answer at all. Probably it will be better to have more time improving your own work . Best wishes. as
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
  1. Describe and explain in a paragraph what is a descriptive pragmatic approach and psychological pragmatic approach.
  2. Explain what syntactic and semantic theories are. Is syntactic and semantic theories are more Positive Accounting Theory or Normative Accounting Theory?
  3. Explain the question below less than two paragraphs as to why?
“Early auditing theories were constructed by observing the practices of auditors”. Explain what type of theory construction is this? List the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
Relevant answer
The following two books talk about accounting theories and applications; you may want to check them out:
Generational accounting: theory and application‏
H Bonin - 2013‏ - books.google.com‏
Financial accounting theory‏
WR Scott - 2015‏ - etonline-digitallibrary.com‏
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
38 answers
After submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal, is there a maximum number of revisions?
Relevant answer
Answer
It depends on the quality of the revised paper. The better quality, the less revisions. In general, neither authors, nor editors/reviewers interested in revisions multiplication.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
It's developed by Jay Peters, Carey Nason, and Winston M. Turner as a revised version of Hypermasculinity Index.
Relevant answer
Answer
Great discussion
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
20 answers
Editor of a journal asked for "Major Revision" for a submitted paper, after submitting revised paper it went for the review, after that the status shows "with Editor" for some time. Now, again it went for review. That is it went for review twice. What does it indicate? Does this mean eventual rejection? Any comments and suggestions regarding this would be helpful.
Sincerely
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Devnath Shah your original question "After submitting major revision, my paper went for review, after that status again changed to "Under Review". What it means?" was asked more than a year ago and still receives answers. Thus it would be interesting to the readers of this thread to know what the outcome of this story was. Has your paper been finally accepted? I hope so.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
I have a very big molecule and I want to optimize the molecule with two dihedral angles being optimized within a certain range. I am using opt=modredundant method in Gaussian 16, Revision B.01.
After some search, I have used the input command as follows:
# opt=modredundant cam-b3lyp/genecp scrf=(iefpcm,solvent=dichloromethane) geom=connectivity scf=(xqc,maxcycle=1200)
.
.
.
.
392 393 1.0 394 1.0
393
394
* 103 220 *
91 103 220 208 F -0.5 -2.0
* 23 300 *
11 23 300 288 F -0.5 -2.0
C H N O 0
6-31G(d)
****
Zn 0
LANL2DZ
****
Zn 0
LANL2DZ
But this method did not work out. It shows the error mentioned below:
The following ModRedundant input section has been read:
D * 103 220 * B
Wanted an end-of-line for input.
Found a floating point number as input.
91 103 220 208 F -0.5 -2.0
?
Error termination via Lnk1e in /opt/Gaussian/g16_expt/g16/l101.exe
Please suggest me how to optimize my molecule by restraining the desired dihedral angles to be optimized within the mentioned range.
Relevant answer
Answer
I apologize, I do not have information because the subject is far from my specialty
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
16 answers
Esta parece ser una pregunta sencilla que debería tener una respuesta única y categórica. En teoría, los datos moleculares disponibilizados por otros autores en el GenBank son de LIBRE acceso y de acuerdo a esto, pueden ser utilizados por otros investigadores en nuevos estudios. Algo parecido ocurre con el material biológico (partes de individuos o individuos completos) que es colectado y depositado por un investigador y que posteriormente es utilizado por otros investigadores en nuevos estudios. Este podría ser el raciocinio lógico para cualquier editor que recibe un documento que incluye un análisis filogenético realizado con datos del GenBank. Sin embargo, parece ser que no siempre los editores están de acuerdo con el libre uso de datos moleculares depositados en GenBank. Expongo el siguiente caso:
En primera instancia sometimos para revisión uno de mis artículos a una conocida revista de Biodiversidad Marina. Este trabajo fue el fruto de un extenso proceso de colaboración científica entre colegas del área de la carcinología de varios países que se extendió por más de 4 años, y que incluyó extensos viajes de colecta por toda la costa del Atlántico Sur Occidental junto con la revisión de vastos lotes de organismos depositados en museos dentro y fuera de Brasil.
En sí, en el trabajo propusimos la separación de las poblaciones de un camarón de la costa de Brasil de la gran población de esta misma especie del Atlántico Occidental con la propuesta de una nueva especie para la ciencia más otros detalles taxonómicos. Para darle un fortalecimiento a nuestos datos morfológicos, reanalizamos la información molecular depositada en GenBank por otros autores. Luego de algunos días, un conocido investigador experto en 'squat lobsters' que actuó como editor invitado, nos escribió rechazando el artículo con el argumento de que habíamos cometido una falta ética al utilizar los datos moleculares disponibilizados en GenBank por otro grupo de investigación. Al pedir explicaciones al editor, este defendió la postura del revisor anónimo diciendo que era un problema que nosotros debíamos resolver.
En un segundo intento, el editor de otra revista dentro de Brasil señaló que el análisis molecular era similar al de otro autor y que por lo tanto, el trabajo era rechazado editorialmente. Este editor no se identificó y no permitió ninguna respuesta. Tampoco consideró que la parte molecular de nuestro trabajo apenas representaba el 10% de un trabajo que consideró lotes provenientes de un amplió rango geográfico.
Este relato representa un caso en el que los editores de dos diferentes revistas tienen una idea completamente diferente de lo que debería ser el libre uso de datos moleculares disponibles en GenBank. A todas luces, este parece ser un buen ejemplo de como dos diferentes editores hacen una defensa corporativa del trabajo realizado por investigadores con los cuales mantienen un nexo de amistad. Es decir, en este caso, si los autores de los datos moleculares no fueron capaces de encontrar las diferencias morfológicas que respaldasen sus datos moleculares, nadie más que no sea de su círculo cercano puede publicar el hallazgo de esta nueva especie. La camorra italiana tiene buenos ejemplos dentro de nuestra querida ciencia......
Relevant answer
Answer
Patricio Hernáez Tu relato no solo es increíble, si no inadmisible, la naturaleza de GB es precisamente acceso abierto para el uso científico de datos, ello permite la replicabilidad, incluso la curaduría molecular de las mismas seciuencias ya publicadas. Soy autor que hago uso frecuente de NCBI y además editor en dos revistas de biodiversidad, taxonomía y sistemática donde evaluamos artículos constantemente con evidencia molecular generada y obtenida de GB.
Creo que aquí la reflexión de la supuesta falta a la ética no esta precisamente en los autores.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
5 answers
Hello,
Does anyone know how to score the self-regulated online learning questionnaire (Jansen et al)?
Any help or links to study which have used it would be much appreciated!
This is the 2016 version, not the revised 2018 version.
Many thanks
Manpreet
Relevant answer
Answer
i agree with k.m. anwarul
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
I came across a recent taxonomic work, where two genera were synonymized. Both genera were published in a paper in 1922 by the original author who revised the family at that time. The original author described genus X on page 169 and described genus Y on page 176. In the above new taxonomic work, genus X is handled as a junior synonym of genus Y.
Does the principle of priority (ICZN 23.1) apply in this case as well, i.e. should genus Y be the junior synonym of genus X and not vice versa? Or do we have some exceptions here?
A note: both genera were used up till recently and contained about the same number of species.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Tamas Megyaszai,
You Can apply the principle of priority (ICZN 23.1). Many studies reported this principe to several taxa.
Please see link below:
Charbonnier, S., Garassino, A., Pacaud, J. M., & Schweigert, G. (2012). Rediscovery of the type material of Eryon cuvieri Desmarest, 1817 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Eryonidae) and nomenclatural consequences. Geodiversitas, 34(4), 849-855.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
6 answers
I'd like to know whether I'm being just too sensitive or the situation is really messed up by the editor-in-chief. Here's the timeline about what has happened. Journal name : 'Journal X'
1) Journal X send me to ask if I can join as a reviewer of a review paper.
2) I sent my comment back to the editor. I liked the paper which contains a novel conceptualization, but I thought their logic was a bit weak containing several jumps so that 'major revision' was my decision. (Major one for a review paper. I guess this level of revision would be minor for original research.)
3) Within a month later, the editor-in-chief just sent me a decision letter. : 'Accepted'
4) Then I checked the online board of Journal X, and I only could see the authors' responses. However, I couldn't access the revised manuscript by the system, and the status was 'completed', not 'on-going.'
5) I sent the inquiry to the editorial office through the online board messaging system, and I got a letter from the assistant in editorial office that said 'I forwarded this message to the editor-in-chief.'
6) But there was no reply for a week, so I sent out the same inquiry again.
7) Without revealing his/her name, the editorial office reply me, the letter contains, 'sorry for the misunderstanding.'
8) I sent again the more clarified message.
9) No news for more than a week.
<My point of view>
1. Although the authors' answer was perfect enough, accepting a manuscript without asking agreement from the original reviewers who gave the comments about the manuscript was inappropriate action from the editor-in-chief. As a defender of a better peer review process for our scientific community, I consider this situation as a serious misconduct from the editor-in-chief (even if it was a fair mistake.)
2. The online board system was limited to access the revised manuscript.
3. The response from the editorial office was completely wrong. I think this didn't happen by the mutual responsibility. But the editorial office said 'misunderstanding.'
4. This type of mistake and not recognizing responsibility are disrespectful for the reviewers, potential reviewers, and the authors who wrote a quite nice review paper.
Am I too sensitive or unreasonable?
Relevant answer
Answer
Am I being cranky? (as a reviewer of a review paper) Everything is OK. It is a usual peer review process as pointed out by Sanaa N Al- Haj Ali, Frank T. Edelmann and Denis Korneev.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
I am trying to help a friend resolve a problem I have never encountered as an author or as a journal editor.
The manuscript was transferred to a journal belonging to Elsevier in December 2018. It went through three rounds of review with a total of six reviewers and several rounds of editorial comments. As late as March 2020 the manuscript status changed to "reviewer invited," the author sent an inquiry, and the support team forwarded the matter to the editorial team. Three months later, the status changed to "Editor declined invitation." I never heard of that!
After the first revision, the following two rounds were largely if not entirely positive, with recommendations for acceptance. The editorial comments were dealt with properly, but sometimes the journal repeated them after some months. In March Once, they not only repeated the editorial comments, but also raised them on another manuscript belonging to someone else. A recent inquiry from the author resulted in a response to wait for the editor.
My friend's graduation is at jeopardy and she wants to withdraw the manuscript and submit elsewhere. But as she cannot do that until she received confirmation of withdrawal, that can leave her in limbo. Also, submission elsewhere is risky in terms of time and outcome. I cannot find anywhere where at the journal office or Elsevier complaints of this type.
Any suggestions on how top proceed?
Relevant answer
Apparently, there is a problem with this specific journal. However, it is worth-mentioning that there are other journals which may have problems as well. If you cannot talk to the top people of this journal, you may want to switch to another one.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
4 answers
Hello,
My manuscript has been rejected by the editor and reviewers even after the 1st revision. Though I tend to disagree some of the points raised, assume I can't request for another revision challenging their statements.
What should I do next? The editor is offering a transfer to other journal or shall I not transfer and publish in a different journal.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear , colleague you dont' stop here you must submission in many journals and make sur if you are chosen the right journal of your field
Best regards
Dr.Djemli Samir
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
3 answers
I’m invited to review an article. While the article is well written, the article shows some outdated views, such as the view of authenticity, the assumption about international students hoping to get integrated into Anglophone communities. If I point out those views, the author would be expected to make much revisions, which would lead to a different article. I understand that I don’t need to agree with the author’s viewpoints. Does this mean that I should not make comments on those outdated points?
Relevant answer
Answer
Here is a useful article on how to write a good revision:
Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D. C. (2013). From the editors: How to write a high-quality review. Journal of international business studies, 4, 547-553.
I also think that you should for sure tackle upon the outdated point of view. It can be also a suggestion, not a requirement if you don't want the article to get a major revision. However, pretty often major revision really helps to improve the article significantly, so it can be this case.
  • asked a question related to Auditing
Question
32 answers
I have recently submitted a manuscript to the Third World Quarterly, the referees asked for revisions, however, the editor declined it. Why did the editor decline it, whereas the referees requested revisions?
Relevant answer
Answer
Referees are polite, patient and opinionated, while editors are brutal and in a hurry for a decision.
  • asked a question related to Auditing