Reviewer Guidelines
We greatly value the contributions of our peer reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of the articles published in the Horn of Africa Journal of Science and Innovation (HAJSI). As a reviewer, your expertise ensures that submitted manuscripts meet the highest academic and ethical standards. The following guidelines outline the expectations, responsibilities, and review process for our reviewers.
Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Expert Evaluation
Reviewers are expected to provide an expert assessment of the manuscript’s quality, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field. Feedback should be constructive and aimed at helping authors improve their work.
Confidentiality
All submissions are confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss manuscripts with anyone outside of the editorial team or share the content with third parties. Manuscripts must not be used for personal advantage.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest with the manuscript (e.g., if they are collaborators, competitors, or have personal relationships with the authors). If uncertain, please inform the editor for guidance.
Timely Review
We request that reviewers complete their reviews within 2-4 weeks of accepting the invitation. If you are unable to meet this deadline or need more time, please notify the editor as soon as possible.
Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be thorough and respectful. Please avoid offensive language. Constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement are encouraged, along with specific references to areas that need further work or clarification.
Review Process
Invitation
You will receive an invitation to review a manuscript, including the title, abstract, and keywords. Upon receiving the invitation, please confirm your availability and expertise in the subject matter.
Acceptance
If you accept the invitation, the full manuscript will be shared with you for review. If you decline, we may ask for suggestions for alternative reviewers.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Relevance: Does the manuscript fit within the scope of the journal?
- Originality: Is the research innovative, or does it offer new insights in the field?
- Quality of Research: Are the research methods sound, and is the data presented accurately?
- Significance: Does the research contribute to the advancement of knowledge in its field?
- Clarity: Is the paper clearly written, well-organized, and easy to understand?
- References: Are the references appropriate, current, and properly cited?
Providing Feedback
Reviewers will provide comments directly to the editor and/or to the author. This feedback should include:
- General Summary: A brief summary of the manuscript, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses.
- Major Issues: Critical issues that must be addressed for the manuscript to be considered for publication (e.g., flaws in methodology, incomplete data, unclear conclusions).
- Minor Issues: Smaller concerns that do not affect the overall quality of the research but should be corrected (e.g., typos, formatting issues, minor errors).
- Recommendation: Your final recommendation should be one of the following:
- •Accept
- •Accept with minor revisions
- •Major revisions required
- •Reject
Confidential Comments to the Editor
If you have comments that you prefer to keep confidential from the authors, there will be an opportunity to provide them directly to the editorial team.
Review Process
When writing your review report, please include the following sections:
1. Summary of the Manuscript
Provide a brief, objective summary of the manuscript, including the primary findings, research methods, and conclusions.
2. Major Strengths and Weaknesses
Detail the major strengths of the manuscript, including the originality of the work, significance, and clarity. Highlight any major weaknesses or issues, such as methodological flaws, lack of data, or problems with interpretation.
3. Specific Comments
Provide detailed feedback on specific sections of the manuscript, including:
- Title and Abstract: Are they accurate and reflective of the content?
- Introduction: Does it clearly state the problem, hypothesis, and objectives?
- Methods: Are the methods appropriate and well-described?
- Results: Are the results presented clearly and logically?
- Discussion/Conclusion: Does the discussion adequately address the research question and provide meaningful insights?
- Figures and Tables: Are they appropriate, clear, and informative?
4. Recommendations
Offer clear recommendations for improving the manuscript. Be specific about the revisions needed, particularly if major revisions are recommended.
5. Recommendation for the Editor
State your final recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) with brief justification.
6. Ethical Considerations
- Plagiarism: If you suspect plagiarism, fabrication of data, or other ethical violations, please notify the editor immediately with specific examples.
- Authorship Disputes: If you suspect issues with authorship (e.g., lack of appropriate credit, undisclosed contributors), inform the editor for investigation.
- Bias: Ensure that your review is free from personal biases, whether they are related to gender, race, nationality, or academic affiliation.
7. Recognition of Reviewers
We appreciate the valuable contributions of our reviewers. As part of our effort to recognize their work:
- Reviewers will be acknowledged annually on the journal’s website (if they choose to opt-in for public recognition).
- Reviewers may receive certificates of recognition for their service.
- We may also provide opportunities for reviewers to collaborate on editorial roles or special issues.
Thank You for Your Contribution
The Horn of Africa Journal of Science and Innovation relies on the dedication of its peer reviewers to ensure the high standards of our publications. Your expertise and timely reviews play a crucial role in supporting the development of science and innovation in the Horn of Africa and beyond.
If you have any questions or need further clarification on the review process, please feel free to contact us at [editorial contact email].
We appreciate your commitment to advancing scientific knowledge and thank you for your contribution to HAJSI!
Apply to be a Reviewer
Interested in joining our team of reviewers? Fill out our reviewer application form here or email us at reviewers@eajsi.org.