Peer-Review Process

1. SUBMISSION OF PAPER

The corresponding or submitting author officially registers for the journal through the registration site and submits the paper to the journal.

2. EDITORIAL OFFICE ASSESSMENT

The journal editor checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Guidelines for Authors (GFA) to make sure it includes the required sections and style and format. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

Failure to comply with any of the journal submission requirements shall cause an AUTOMATIC REJECTION OF THE PAPER.

 

3. APPRAISAL BY THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF (EIC)

The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. EIC ASSIGNS AN ASSOCIATE EDITOR (AE)

The journal has an Associate Editor who handles the peer review.

5. INVITATION TO REVIEWERS

The handling editor sends invitations to reviewers whom he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers of the submitted paper.

6. RESPONSE TO INVITATION AS REVIEWER

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability and decide whether to accept or decline the invitation.

7. REVIEW IS CONDUCTED

When the reviewer decides to accept the invitation to review a paper, the paper is subjected to a double-blind review. The reviewer reads and evaluates the submitted paper. Initial review is done to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may outrightly reject the paper for publication. Otherwise, the reviewer will thoroughly read and evaluate the paper two or more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review process should not take more than two (2) weeks. The results of the review is then submitted to the journal’s handling editor, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

8. JOURNAL EDITOR EVALUATES THE REVIEWS

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before arriving at a decision.

There must be a recommendation of acceptance by at least 2 peer-reviewers, where a minimum of 80% rating following peer-reviewers’ ratings guide must be met.

• • The review results are as follows:

8.1.1.   If the reviewers did not recommend any revisions to the paper, then it is due for publication.

8.1.2.   If the paper is accepted conditionally with minor revisions, then the authors need to comply with                the suggested revisions.

8.1.3.   If the paper is accepted conditionally with major revisions, then the authors need to comply with                the suggested revisions.

• If the authors have completely made the needed suggested revisions, then it will be published. If not, the associate editor will give the authors one last chance to revise their submitted paper. 

9. THE DECISION IS COMMUNICATED

The editor-in-chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.

10. NEXT STEPS

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for reasons of either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review may be done by the handling editor.