Peer Review Policy

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

The Researchers Journal of Science and Technology is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and scientifically credible research. Peer review is therefore an essential part of the journal's editorial process. It helps the journal assess the quality, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and significance of submitted manuscripts.

The peer-review process is intended not only to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication, but also to help authors improve the quality and presentation of their research. The journal therefore encourages reviews that are objective, constructive, respectful, and focused on strengthening the scientific contribution of each manuscript.

  1. Peer-Review Model

The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process, as far as reasonably practicable.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not unnecessarily reveal their identities, institutional affiliations, or other information that could compromise the anonymity of the review process. Reviewers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts assigned to them.

In exceptional circumstances, and where necessary to ensure an appropriate and rigorous assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may approve an alternative review arrangement.

  1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for external peer review. This assessment considers:

  1. the relevance of the manuscript to the scope of the journal;
  2. originality and potential scientific contribution;
  • compliance with the journal's submission requirements;
  1. basic methodological and ethical standards;
  2. clarity and organization of the manuscript; and
  3. evidence that the work has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains serious methodological weaknesses, or fails to comply with the journal's ethical and submission requirements.

Passing the initial editorial assessment does not guarantee publication or imply that the manuscript has been accepted for peer review.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, subject knowledge, and ability to provide an independent and balanced assessment of the manuscript.

The journal normally seeks at least two independent reviewers for each research manuscript. Additional reviewers may be invited where the subject is interdisciplinary, where the reports are substantially conflicting, or where the Editor-in-Chief considers further assessment necessary.

Reviewers may be selected from within or outside Nigeria. Members of the editorial board may also review manuscripts when they have appropriate expertise and no conflict of interest with the authors or the research being assessed.

The journal does not select reviewers solely on the basis of institutional affiliation, seniority, or geographical location.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. assess manuscripts objectively and independently;
  2. treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents;
  3. disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment;
  4. decline the review if they are unable to provide an impartial assessment;
  5. provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive comments;
  6. identify significant errors, unsupported claims, methodological weaknesses, or relevant omissions;
  7. draw attention to relevant published work where appropriate, without demanding unnecessary citations;
  8. avoid using information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or research advantage; and
  9. submit their review within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the editor if additional time is required.

A reviewer should not recommend rejection merely because the manuscript presents conclusions that differ from the reviewer's own research findings or theoretical position.

  1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use the contents of a manuscript for any purpose other than conducting the assigned review without prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content to artificial intelligence systems, online platforms, or other third-party tools where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

The identities of reviewers will normally remain confidential unless the journal adopts a different review arrangement with the knowledge of the relevant parties.

  1. Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer must inform the Editor-in-Chief of any situation that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment of a manuscript.

A conflict of interest may arise where the reviewer:

  1. has recently collaborated with one or more of the authors;
  2. belongs to the same research group or institution as an author;
  • has a personal, professional, financial, or academic relationship with an author;
  1. has a direct competitive interest in the research;
  2. has previously been involved in a dispute with an author; or
  3. has any other relationship that could compromise impartiality.

Where a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment. The Editor-in-Chief will determine whether an alternative reviewer should be invited.

  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects of a manuscript:

  1. Originality and Contribution
  2. Does the manuscript present original research?
  3. Does it make a meaningful contribution to knowledge?
  • Is the research question or objective clearly stated?
  1. Scientific and Technical Quality
  2. Are the methods appropriate and adequately described?
  3. Are the data reliable and sufficiently analyzed?
  • Are the results logically presented and supported by the evidence?
  1. Are the conclusions consistent with the findings?
  2. Literature and Context
  3. Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant literature?
  4. Is the research adequately positioned within existing knowledge?
  • Are important and relevant studies considered?
  1. Presentation and Organization
  2. Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
  3. Are figures, tables, equations, and supplementary materials appropriate and properly presented?
  • Is the language sufficiently clear for the intended readership?
  1. Ethical and Research Integrity Considerations
  2. Does the study raise concerns regarding research ethics, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of misconduct?
  3. Where applicable, are ethical approvals, permissions, consent, and other necessary declarations adequately addressed?
  4. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  1. Accept:The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor changes.
  2. Minor Revision:The manuscript is potentially publishable after relatively limited corrections or clarifications.
  • Major Revision:The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes before a publication decision can be made.
  1. Reject:The manuscript has serious weaknesses, lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution, falls outside the journal's scope, or cannot reasonably be revised to meet the journal's standards.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor will consider the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall suitability for the journal.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may:

  1. request clarification from the reviewers;
  2. invite an additional independent reviewer;
  • request revision from the authors; or
  1. make an editorial decision based on the available evidence.

The journal does not make publication decisions solely by counting reviewer recommendations. The quality and scientific basis of the reviews are also considered.

  1. Revised Manuscripts

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
  2. a detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

The response should clearly indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where the authors disagree with a comment, they should provide a clear and respectful scientific explanation.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the changes required.

  1. Review Timelines

The journal aims to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and integrity of the process.

Reviewers are normally given a reasonable period within which to complete their assessments. If a reviewer is unable to meet the agreed deadline, the reviewer should notify the editorial office promptly.

Authors may contact the editorial office regarding the progress of a manuscript where the review process has been significantly delayed. The journal may replace reviewers who repeatedly fail to respond or who are unable to complete an assigned review within a reasonable period.

  1. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific and scholarly quality of the manuscript and are not influenced by the author's nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, academic rank, personal characteristics, political views, or commercial interests.

The Faculty of Physical Sciences, Akwa Ibom State University, provides the institutional publishing context for the journal but does not improperly influence editorial decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

  1. Handling Suspected Misconduct

Where a reviewer, editor, or author raises a credible concern regarding plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, manipulation of the peer-review process, or other forms of research misconduct, the journal will investigate the matter appropriately.

The journal may request clarification or supporting information from the authors, reviewers, institutions, or other relevant parties where necessary.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the journal may:

  1. suspend the review or publication process;
  2. reject the manuscript;
  • retract or correct a published article where necessary; or
  1. refer the matter to the appropriate institutional or professional authority.

All allegations will be handled as fairly, confidentially, and objectively as possible.

  1. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

  1. a significant factual error was made during the assessment;
  2. the decision was based on a clear misunderstanding of the manuscript;
  • there is evidence of a serious conflict of interest or procedural irregularity; or
  1. important information was not properly considered.

An appeal should provide a clear explanation of the grounds for the appeal and should not simply repeat arguments already addressed during the review process.

The Editor-in-Chief will determine whether the appeal has sufficient grounds for further consideration. The decision following an appeal is normally final.

  1. Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the important contribution made by peer reviewers to the quality of scholarly publishing. Reviewers may receive formal acknowledgment for their contribution, subject to the journal's confidentiality requirements and the reviewer's consent.

The journal may also provide certificates or other appropriate forms of recognition for completed reviews.

  1. Commitment to Fair and Constructive Peer Review

The Researchers Journal of Science and Technology views peer review as a scholarly partnership between authors, reviewers, and editors. The process is intended to protect the integrity of published research while giving authors a fair opportunity to improve their work.

The journal is committed to a review process that is independent, confidential, fair, timely, respectful, and scientifically rigorous. Reviewers are expected to evaluate research rather than individuals, and authors are expected to respond to criticism professionally and constructively.

Through this shared responsibility, the journal seeks to promote credible research, responsible scholarship, and the advancement of science and technology.