Review Process

Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Contemporary Africa Research Network (IJCARN) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, originality, and ethical scholarly publishing. The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. This process is designed to promote objective, independent, and constructive evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

All manuscripts submitted to IJCARN pass through the following stages before publication.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the IJCARN online journal submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is complete and complies with the journal's submission requirements.

Authors must ensure that:

  • the manuscript is original;
  • the manuscript has not been published previously;
  • the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
  • all persons who made substantial scholarly contributions are appropriately listed as authors;
  • all sources used in the manuscript are properly acknowledged and referenced;
  • relevant ethical approvals and permissions have been obtained where required; and
  • conflicts of interest and sources of research funding are appropriately disclosed.

Incomplete submissions or manuscripts that do not comply with the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before further processing.

2. Preliminary Editorial Screening

Following submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening of the manuscript. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the submission meets the minimum requirements for consideration by IJCARN.

The editorial screening considers the manuscript's:

  • relevance to the aims and scope of IJCARN;
  • completeness and organization;
  • academic and scholarly quality;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • compliance with the journal's author guidelines;
  • originality;
  • ethical compliance; and
  • general suitability for peer review.

A manuscript that falls outside the journal's scope or has substantial deficiencies that make peer review inappropriate may be rejected at this stage.

3. Similarity and Originality Check

Manuscripts may be subjected to similarity checking using appropriate similarity-detection software before or during the editorial assessment.

Similarity reports are evaluated carefully by the editorial team. Decisions are not based solely on the overall similarity percentage. Editors consider the source, extent, location, and nature of matching material.

Where substantial unattributed copying, duplicate publication, inappropriate text recycling, fabricated material, or other serious research-integrity concerns are identified, the manuscript may be rejected and appropriate action taken in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

4. Assignment to an Editor

A manuscript that successfully passes the preliminary screening is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or an appropriate Section Editor.

The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript to determine whether it has sufficient scholarly merit to proceed to external peer review. Particular attention may be given to the research problem, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodology, analysis, findings, conclusions, contribution to knowledge, and relevance to the journal's multidisciplinary readership.

The editor may recommend that the manuscript proceed to peer review, be returned for preliminary correction, or be rejected.

5. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts approved for peer review are assigned to suitably qualified reviewers with knowledge or research experience relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Normally, a manuscript should be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on considerations such as:

  • expertise in the subject area;
  • research and publication experience;
  • ability to provide an objective scholarly assessment;
  • absence of conflicts of interest; and
  • willingness to complete the review within the required period.

Reviewers who have actual or potential conflicts of interest concerning a manuscript should decline the review invitation or disclose the conflict to the editor.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

IJCARN uses a double-blind peer review process. Authors' identities and identifying information are withheld from reviewers as far as reasonably practicable, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as confidential scholarly documents. Manuscript contents should not be shared, reproduced, distributed, or used for personal or professional advantage before publication.

The double-blind process is intended to reduce the influence of factors such as authorship, institutional affiliation, geographical location, academic status, or personal relationships on the assessment of a manuscript.

7. Evaluation of the Manuscript

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on their scholarly quality rather than personal agreement with the authors' conclusions.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers may consider:

  • originality of the research;
  • relevance of the research problem;
  • contribution to existing knowledge;
  • adequacy of the literature review;
  • appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • suitability of the research methodology;
  • appropriateness of population, sampling, instruments, and procedures;
  • validity and reliability of measurements where applicable;
  • appropriateness of data analysis;
  • accuracy and clarity of the presentation of results;
  • relationship between findings and previous studies;
  • validity of conclusions;
  • appropriateness of recommendations;
  • quality and currency of references;
  • ethical considerations; and
  • overall quality of scholarly presentation.

Reviewers should provide constructive comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

8. Reviewers' Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, each reviewer submits a report and recommendation to the editor.

The recommendation may fall within one of the following categories:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's publication requirements and can proceed towards publication, subject to normal editorial and production checks.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is suitable for publication but requires relatively minor corrections or clarifications before acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial changes. The author must address the major concerns raised by the reviewers and/or editor before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires extensive changes that cannot reasonably be addressed through an ordinary revision. Authors may be invited to substantially revise the work and submit it for consideration as a new manuscript.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication or contains substantial scholarly, methodological, ethical, or other deficiencies.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision on a manuscript rests with the editorial team of IJCARN.

9. Editorial Decision

After receiving the required peer review reports, the assigned editor considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations.

Where reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

  • independently assess the conflicting recommendations;
  • request clarification from the reviewers;
  • invite an additional reviewer; or
  • refer the manuscript to another member of the editorial team.

Following the assessment, the corresponding author receives an editorial decision together with relevant reviewer comments.

10. Revision by Authors

Where revision is required, authors are expected to respond carefully to the comments provided by the reviewers and editor.

Authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

Where an author disagrees with a particular recommendation, the author may provide a clear scholarly justification. The editor will consider such explanations when evaluating the revised manuscript.

Authors should complete revisions within the period specified in the editorial decision. Where additional time is required, the corresponding author should contact the editorial office.

11. Assessment of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine whether the concerns raised during the previous review have been adequately addressed.

For minor revisions, the editor may assess the revised manuscript directly and make a decision.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers where necessary.

More than one round of revision may be required before a final decision is reached.

12. Final Decision

After considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and revisions, the editor makes the final decision.

A manuscript may be:

  • Accepted for publication;
  • Returned for further revision; or
  • Rejected.

Acceptance indicates that the manuscript has satisfactorily completed the scholarly review stage and can proceed to editorial production.

13. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo editorial and production processing. This may include checking and correcting:

  • grammar and language;
  • referencing and citation consistency;
  • tables and figures;
  • headings and manuscript organization;
  • author names and affiliations;
  • abstract and keywords;
  • formatting;
  • bibliographic information; and
  • journal style.

Copyediting should improve the presentation and consistency of the article without changing the authors' scholarly arguments or research findings.

14. Author Proofreading

The corresponding author may receive a proof of the formatted article for final checking before publication.

Authors should carefully verify names, affiliations, tables, figures, references, and other bibliographic information. Proofreading is primarily intended to identify production errors and should not normally be used to introduce substantial changes to an accepted manuscript.

15. Publication

After completion of the required editorial and production processes, the final article is published on the IJCARN website as part of the appropriate volume and issue.

The published article contains the necessary bibliographic information and metadata to facilitate citation, retrieval, scholarly dissemination, and indexing.

16. Post-Publication Review and Corrections

IJCARN recognizes that editorial responsibility continues after publication. Where significant errors or ethical concerns are reported concerning a published article, the editorial team will examine the matter.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue, appropriate action may include:

  • publication of a correction;
  • publication of an editorial notice;
  • expression of concern;
  • correction of article metadata; or
  • retraction of the article where necessary.

Authors, readers, reviewers, and other researchers may contact the journal regarding substantial errors or research-integrity concerns associated with published articles.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential. Information obtained through the peer review process should not be disclosed or used for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers should disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect their impartiality in evaluating a manuscript. Where a significant conflict exists, another editor or reviewer should handle the manuscript.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts. Decisions should not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, personal relationship, or other considerations unrelated to scholarly merit.

Summary of the IJCARN Review Process

Manuscript Submission → Preliminary Screening → Similarity and Originality Check → Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Selection → Double-Blind Peer Review → Reviewer Recommendations → Editorial Decision → Author Revision → Revised Manuscript Assessment → Final Decision → Copyediting and Proofreading → Publication

Through this process, the International Journal of Contemporary Africa Research Network (IJCARN) seeks to ensure that articles published in the journal satisfy appropriate standards of academic quality, originality, research integrity, and scholarly relevance.