Peer Review Policy

Review model

All journals published by the Department operate double-blind peer review. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors, for the duration of the process.

This model is used because it reduces the influence of institutional prestige, seniority and nationality on editorial judgement — a particular concern for a journal committed to publishing African scholarship on equal terms.

The process

A manuscript passes through the following stages before publication:

• Editorial screening — the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor checks scope, structure, ethical compliance and originality. Manuscripts outside the journal's scope are returned promptly rather than held.
• Similarity check — all submissions are screened for textual overlap with published literature.
• Reviewer assignment — at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise are invited. Reviewers must have no institutional or personal conflict with the work.
• Review — reviewers assess originality, methodological soundness, clarity of argument, adequacy of the literature, and the validity of conclusions drawn from the evidence presented.
• Editorial decision — accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Where reviewers disagree materially, a third reviewer is invited.
• Revision and final decision — revised manuscripts are reassessed, normally by the original reviewers.

Timelines

We aim to return an initial editorial decision within four weeks of submission and a full review decision within twelve weeks. Authors are notified if a review is running beyond these targets.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision rested on a factual error or a material misunderstanding of the work may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.