Review Policy for the Journal of Digital Transformation in Africa
At The Journal of Digital Transformation in Africa, we are committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in our peer review process. Our review policy is designed to ensure transparency, fairness, and integrity in the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts, adhering to COPE guidelines.
Double-Blind Peer Review
- The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that the identities of both the authors and reviewers are anonymized throughout the review process.
- Manuscripts that do not align with the journal’s scope or fail to meet editorial standards will not proceed to the review stage.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers play a crucial role in upholding the quality and integrity of the peer review process by adhering to the following responsibilities:
- Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious) and must decline to review if such conflicts exist.
- Timeliness: Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they can meet the proposed deadlines. In case of unforeseen circumstances, they should promptly inform the journal and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.
- Conducting a Review: Reviewers should thoroughly assess the manuscript and any supplementary data while maintaining strict confidentiality. They should contact the editor for clarification if any aspects of the manuscript are unclear.
- Ethics Violations: If any ethical concerns, such as research misconduct or plagiarism, arise during the review, reviewers must immediately notify the editor and refrain from conducting personal investigations.
- Transferability of Peer Review: Reviewers may be asked to transfer their reviews to other journals within the publisher’s portfolio. If they agree, they must provide their original review, noting any differences in evaluation criteria.
Preparing a Review Report
- Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and specific feedback that helps the authors improve their manuscript.
- All comments should be professional, avoiding hostile, inflammatory, or defamatory remarks. The recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) must align with the comments provided.
- Reviewers must respect the authors’ writing style, recommending changes only to enhance clarity.
- They should distinguish between essential additional analyses and those that are supplementary or extend the work.
- The review process must be conducted independently, and reviewers should avoid unnecessary delays or promoting citations for personal gain.
Author Responsibilities
Authors play an important role in the peer review process and must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Conflicts of Interest: Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, whether personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious.
- Timeliness: Authors should address reviewer comments promptly and submit revisions within the specified timeframe. If additional time is needed, they should inform the editorial team.
Editorial Responsibilities
Editors are responsible for ensuring that all manuscripts are reviewed objectively and ethically. Their responsibilities include:
- Fair Assessment: Manuscripts will be evaluated solely based on academic merit, without bias toward gender, race, ethnicity, or geographical location.
- Transparency: Editors will provide clear feedback to authors, detailing the reasons for the final decision (accept, revise, or reject) and the feedback from reviewers.
- Appeals Process: Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals will be handled transparently and fairly, following COPE guidelines.
Handling Ethical Issues
- Plagiarism and Misconduct: In cases where reviewers or editors identify ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations, the journal will follow COPE’s procedures for handling such issues.
- Allegations of Misconduct: Allegations of ethical misconduct will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts or retract published papers if misconduct is confirmed.
- Corrections and Retractions: The journal will issue corrections or retractions in accordance with COPE guidelines if errors or ethical concerns are discovered after publication.
Timeliness
- Reviewer Deadlines: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the designated timeframe to ensure the review process is timely. Extensions may be granted if requested in advance.
- Editorial Deadlines: The editorial team is committed to communicating with authors in a timely manner, providing updates at each stage of the review process.
Post-Review Considerations
- Revised Manuscripts: Reviewers should be willing to review revised or resubmitted manuscripts if requested.
- Confidentiality: Even after the review process is complete, reviewers must continue to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents.
Final Decision
- The final decision on all manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the journal’s editorial policy.
- Authors will be informed of the final decision, along with constructive feedback from the reviewers.