Peer Review Process

This is an important scientific requirement for the publication of manuscripts in the Nsukka Journal of the Humanities. Peer review presents an opportunity for the journal to publish articles of high standard and quality as well as adhere to the journal’s scope and focus. The NJH adopts a double-blind process, that is, both the names and identities of the reviewers and the author(s) of the manuscript are removed in the process of inviting the reviewer. This is to avoid bias at all levels of the review process. Reviewers will focus on the credibility, clear thesis statement, logical argument, clear methodology and veracity of the research, and findings as well as originality and quality of the manuscript. The Nsukka Journal of the Humanities adopts four peer-review processes, namely:

Editor screening

The Editor has sole responsibility to read the manuscript and determine its initial suitability with a specific focus on fundamental flaws, irrelevant to the scope and the goal of the journal. At this stage, the Editor can reject the manuscript if the content fails to deliver on the fundamental requirements. At this stage, it is known as desk-reject without external review and the Editor may or may not provide reasons for the rejection while notifying the author(s). If the manuscript passes the Editor’s initial assessments, external reviewers are invited to provide critical opinions.

Peer review

The peer review process usually takes between two and four months. Usually, three to four reviewers are invited to review the manuscript, but the process a bit longer time because credible reviewers are hard to find. However, once reviewers accept to evaluate the manuscript, two months is the maximum period for reviewers to submit their reports. The NHJ has its criteria – clear thesis statement, logical argument, clear methodology and veracity of the research findings as well as originality and quality – for manuscript evaluation, but because the reviewers are experts in their fields, the journal usually encourages reviewers to be exhaustive and not be limited by the journal’s criteria. The editor makes decisions, whether the manuscript is rejected, or major or minor revisions based on the reviewers’ critical opinions and recommendations. Most often, all the manuscripts have to pass through the second review process, but only a few good manuscripts will not pass through the reviewers after the first review process.