Peer Review:

The journal uses a double blind review system: Normally, two copies of each article are given out to two specialists in the field of the article. Each reviewer is given a format that requires them to fill information regarding appropriateness of the topic, the problem, the research questions (hypotheses) and the significance of the investigation. The reviewers also comment on the rigour or otherwise of the method as well as issues of reliability and validity. Also, reviewers state whether the article has added new knowledge. They may state whether new knowledge has been added, whether knowledge has been reorganized or whether there is nothing new. Apart from comments written all over the article, the reviewers state  their final verdict. Based on that verdict they check one of four options, which may recommend acceptance of the article ‘as is’, acceptance subject to certain changes, addressing reviewer concerns and re-submission or outright rejection.

Both copies of the article are normally returned to the Editor-in Chief, who writes a covering letter to the author, indicating what should be done before the article can be accepted for publication. Once all corrections have been done, the author sends a soft copy of the article to the Editor-in-Chief, who compares it to copies containing reviewer comments. The Editor-in-Chief may discuss portions of articles with reviewers before finally writing to authors that their article has been accepted for publication, and that they should pay the applicable publication fee. in order  for their article to be published. 

Open Access Policy:

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Journal Identifiers

print ISSN: 2026-6081