DFAS-EIR Case 018: Low-Transparency Capacity-Based Editorial Rejection Without Manuscript-Specific Justification – Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting & Finance

Abstract

Description DFAS-EIR Case 018: Low-Transparency Capacity-Based Editorial Rejection Without Manuscript-Specific Justification – Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting & Finance This public analytical case record documents and evaluates the editorial handling of the manuscript “Developing the Artificial Intelligence Governance Readiness Index (AIGRI): A Comparative Assessment of AI Governance Readiness in GCC Financial Systems,” submitted to the Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting & Finance (AAMJAF) on 6 August 2026 and rejected on 11 August 2026, five calendar days after submission. The editorial decision cited high submission volume, strict selection, and limited publication space but provided no manuscript-specific scientific or editorial assessment. DFAS-EIR Case 018 The case applies the DFAS Editorial Ethics Protocol (DFAS-EEP v1.5) to distinguish between legitimate editorial discretion, limited decision transparency, and a governance violation. The assessment finds that the journal supplied an identifiable and interpretable institutional rationale, but did not connect that rationale to the manuscript’s scope, theoretical contribution, methodology, evidence, originality, writing quality, or comparative editorial position. DFAS-EIR Case 018 Accordingly, the case is classified as LTD — Low-Transparency Decision, with the secondary classification Editorial Legitimacy Zone — Capacity and Selection Constraint. The governance outcome is NGV — No Governance Violation Established, and no confirmed ethical misconduct or basis for escalation is identified. DFAS-EIR Case 018 The purpose of this record is non-adversarial governance documentation rather than criticism or allegation. Its methodological value lies in demonstrating that editorial transparency is multidimensional: a rejection may be procedurally legitimate and clearly communicated while still providing insufficient manuscript-specific explanation. The case also contributes to the longitudinal application and development of DFAS-EIR and DFAS-EEP as instruments for analyzing transparency, proportionality, and governance integrity in scholarly publishing. DFAS-EIR Case 018 Case ID: DFAS-EIR Case 018Classification: Public Non-Adversarial Analytical Case RecordPrimary Classification: LTD — Low-Transparency DecisionGovernance Outcome: NGV — No Governance Violation EstablishedEthical Outcome: No Confirmed Ethical MisconductEscalation Status: No Escalation