Review Policy

1. Overview

The African Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences (AJBMSA) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, research integrity, and scholarly excellence. To achieve this, all manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

The objective of peer review is to ensure that published research is original, methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and contributes meaningfully to knowledge within the journal’s scope.

Neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other’s identities throughout the review process.

2. Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before being sent for peer review.

During this stage, the editorial office evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the scope of the journal;
  • Complies with the Author Guidelines;
  • Demonstrates originality and scholarly merit;
  • Meets minimum academic writing standards;
  • Includes all required declarations and supporting documentation;
  • Meets ethical and publication requirements; and
  • Passes an initial plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor and submitted to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

AJBMSA follows a double-blind peer-review model, meaning:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewer reports remain confidential.

This process promotes fairness, impartiality, and objective evaluation.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications;
  • Subject expertise;
  • Research and publication experience;
  • Previous reviewing experience where applicable;
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal aims to appoint reviewers from different institutions whenever possible to ensure independence and objectivity.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty;
  • Significance of the research problem;
  • Contribution to existing knowledge;
  • Theoretical foundation;
  • Methodological rigour;
  • Quality of data analysis;
  • Validity of conclusions;
  • Practical and policy implications;
  • Structure and organisation;
  • Clarity of writing;
  • Quality and relevance of references;
  • Compliance with ethical standards.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based feedback that assists authors in improving their manuscripts.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the handling editor may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revisions;
  • Accept subject to minor revisions;
  • Major revisions required;
  • Reject with an invitation to resubmit as a new submission; or
  • Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering reviewer reports, editorial recommendations, and the overall quality of the manuscript.

7. Revision Process

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to:

  • Address each reviewer comment individually;
  • Submit a revised manuscript;
  • Provide a detailed response letter explaining how comments were addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation where necessary.

8. Review Timeline

AJBMSA is committed to providing a timely and efficient review process.

The journal aims to achieve the following indicative timelines:

Stage

Target Timeline

Initial Editorial Screening

1 week

Reviewer Invitation

2 weeks

Peer Review

4–6 weeks

Editorial Decision

Within 2 week after reviews

Author Revision (Minor)

Up to 2 weeks

Author Revision (Major)

Up to 4 weeks

Final Editorial Decision

Within 1 week

Copyediting and Production

2–3 weeks

These timelines represent targets rather than guarantees and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of individual manuscripts.

9. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality;
  • Declare any conflicts of interest;
  • Review manuscripts objectively and professionally;
  • Provide constructive recommendations;
  • Support their comments with academic reasoning;
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe;
  • Notify the editor immediately if unable to complete the review.

Reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal research or disclose manuscript contents to third parties.

10. Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors must:

  • Cooperate throughout the review process;
  • Respond respectfully to reviewer comments;
  • Submit revisions within the requested deadline;
  • Clearly indicate all changes made;
  • Refrain from contacting reviewers directly.

11. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to AJBMSA are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff may not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained during the review process except as necessary for editorial evaluation.

12. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers who identify any financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality must immediately notify the Editorial Office and decline participation in the review process where appropriate.

13. Appeals

Authors who believe an editorial decision was made in error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals must provide clear academic justification and will be reviewed independently. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

14. Commitment to Quality

AJBMSA is committed to an efficient, fair, transparent, and rigorous peer-review process that balances timely publication with high academic standards. The journal recognises that timely editorial decisions are essential to supporting researchers while ensuring that every published article meets internationally recognised standards of scholarly quality and research integrity.