Guidelines for Reviewers
Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts will first undergo editorial review to see if they meet the standard reporting protocols and ensure that they pass a plagiarism test (scores below 30% are acceptable). The manuscripts will then be sent for external peer review by at least two reviewers. The reviewers will be selected based on expertise in the subject area the manuscript concerns itself with. We estimate a 4 to 6-week turnover period for the first response from the reviewers. The review process will be entirely double blinded.
Guidelines for Reviewers
Rationale for peer review
The peer review process assures the integrity, quality and relevance of the journal as a source of scientific information. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and fair evaluations of received manuscripts within three weeks of receipt of such manuscripts.
The journal encourages reviewers to have the improvement of manuscripts as their primary objective. However, where manuscripts fail to meet minimum technical and contextual standards, rejection must be considered a valid option.
Responsibilities of reviewers and review process
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and ensure that they destroy all files concerned with reviewed manuscripts after a decision has been reached on such manuscripts. Reviewers must ensure that they do not have conflicts of interests in manuscripts they may be asked to review. If they do, they should excuse themselves from such reviews. The maximum period allocated to the review of a manuscript for an initial review is three weeks. If a reviewer has not provided feedback to the journal within this period, the journal assumes that he/she has recused themselves from such a review and will hand the manuscript over to another reviewer.
The evaluation criteria expected to be used in reviewing manuscripts include originality, scientific rigor, clarity, relevance to the field of study/practice and maintenance of ethical integrity. Reviewers are also expected to review the referencing within manuscripts. They are to review the adequacy, currentness and conformity with journal referencing requirements.
Reviewers will be provided a review template to make the review process as objective as possible. The review templates will guide the reviewer in scoring manuscripts on a quantitative scale from 0 to 100. The template awards scores based on originality, technical quality and adherence to reporting protocols. These criteria are weighted in a 30:40:30 ratio. A score of at least 50 is required for acceptance of the manuscript. The reviewers are also encouraged to state what the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript are. The reviewers are also encouraged to proffer suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript. The reviewers will also make in-text corrections on a word document containing the original manuscript.
Submitted articles will typically be sent to 3 reviewers and decisions may be reached after feedback from 2 of these reviewers. The authors may suggest reviewers for their manuscript, however; the journal will apply her discretion in the appointment of reviewers. The review process will be completely double blinded.
A submitted manuscript will undergo editorial review (typically within 48 hours) before being sent out for peer review. The editorial review shall assess if authors have kept themselves within the constraints of the formatting and referencing styles of the journal. The editorial review shall also include confirmation of submission of a duly filled reporting checklist (Authors are encouraged to download the reporting templates from the journal site and fill them before beginning the submission process). The manuscript will thereafter be sent to at least 2 and at most 3 peer reviewers. Decisions will be made after receipt of replies from the majority of the peer reviewers.
Manuscript Review Template
Reviewer Information
| Reviewer Name: | __________________________ |
| Date: | __________________________ |
| Manuscript ID/Title: | __________________________ |
Manuscript Scores
| Criteria | Maximum Score | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Originality and contribution to knowledge | 30 | _____ |
| Technical Quality | 50 | _____ |
| Reporting Protocols | 20 | _____ |
| Total Score | 100 | _____ |
Reviewer Comments
| Strengths | _____________________________________________________________________________ |
| Weaknesses | _____________________________________________________________________________ |
| Suggestions for Improvement | _____________________________________________________________________________ (please drop in text corrections and comments here) |
Recommendation
| ☐ Accept |
| ☐ Minor Revision |
| ☐ Major Revision |
| ☐ Reject |