increase your knowledge
Browse our journals to access quality articles that cut across different subject areas
Get an editorial decision within 7 days.
All publication formats are freely accessible and downloadable by the public.
Our publications and policies are compliant with important reposteries and allow authors to deposit and achive anywhere.
Receive 50% - 100% fee waiver granted to the first three articles accepted in a new issue of our journals
Academic & career success
We want to be a part of your academic & career success
Minimum Requirements for Editorial Positions
1. Editor-in-chief: should be a professor, associate or assistant professor.
2. Sub-Editors must at least be a PhD holder, and should have published at least 5 articles.
3. Reviewers should be PhD holders, although MSc holders with adequate experience on a subject area can review occasionally. He or she must have published atleast two well written articles.
4. Proofreaders should have at least a BSc degree, but preferably a MSc degree.
Obligations of an Editor
1. Editors do more thorough evaluations on manuscripts, and their decisions on a paper is crucial to the editorial process. The editors’ decisions on a paper for publication should be based majorly on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the subject area(s) of the journal.
2. The editor should make unbiased decisions on all manuscripts offered for publication, with no regards to gender, race, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship, or political viewpoint of the author(s).
3. The editor should process manuscripts promptly.
4. The management team of the journal has the right and authority to accept a paper for publication or to reject it, after the recommendation of the editor(s).
5. The editor should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers.
6. The editor's need to accept or reject a manuscript should not be influenced by pressure from the editor's employer, the journal owner or the publisher.
7. If mistakes are discovered that can affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article, with credible evidence, and the information of a published paper is incorrect; the editor should facilitate publication of a corrected paper by informing the editorial office, pointing out the error(s) and, if possible, correcting it.
8. The editors should take suspected cases of plagiarism seriously.
9. The editor should never disclose the identities of reviewers to the authors.
10. The editor should be observant for images or information in a manuscript that might have cultural significance or cause offence.
11. The editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors. The information, arguments, or interpretations in an unpublished manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research without the consent of the author.
12. The editorial duty for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be passed on to some other qualified editorial team members. The editor should prevent situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts can also include, handling papers from students or colleagues with whom the editor has recently worked together, and from those in the same institution.
Obligations of a Reviewer
1. Although the review process is an essential step before a manuscript can be published, reviewers are obligated to be fair, logical and unbiased when reviewing a manuscript. This should not be an opportunity to discredit a manuscript for selfish reasons. Reviewers should be able to explain and support their judgments properly so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Reviewers that default by sending unfair and biased comments will be blacklisted.
2. A reviewer who observes that he/she is not sufficiently qualified or lacks the time to review a manuscript, should immediately alert our editorial office. The reviewer can also suggest other reviewers that are qualified to review the manuscript.
3. A reviewer that has accepted to review a manuscript should be responsible to give a feedback after receiving the manuscript. It is an unethical and a suspicious behavior for reviewers to stop communicating after receiving a manuscript.
4. A reviewer should comment on the originality of the study and its importance to the field of study. Reviewers should be able to have learnt something new if the research question and study is original. If the research question is unoriginal because related work has been published previously, please give references. The research question should easily be identified and clearly understood. Also, reviewers should indicate if the conclusion from the study is clear, understandable and valid.
5. A reviewer should ensure that the data of the study is authentic, adequate and well utilized. Please indicate unsuitable use of data and state your reasons. Alternative data sources may as well be suggested. In addition, elaborate on your reason, if you think that more evidence is required to back up the results.
6. A reviewer should ensure that the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) is balanced, supported by the data and without exaggerations.
7. A reviewer should be watchful to observe authors failure to cite relevant works. A reviewer should check if the authors provided adequate references where necessary. A reviewer should alert the editorial office of any suspected plagiarism or any other unethical conduct. The Reviewer should provide a link to the published manuscript, in a case of plagiarism that was not detected by our editorial office.
8. A reviewer should answer these questions: Are the methods suitable? Is it well defined and detailed enough to allow peers in that field to reproduce the work? Have the experiments been properly performed and are they adequate? Are the experimental techniques consistent and suitable? Please give sufficient details if further improvements are to be made on the study method. Also clearly explain in detail, if more experiments should be carried out.
9. A reviewer should be observant even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is strongly related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. The reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
10. A reviewer should not review a manuscript that has been authored or co-authored by a person who is personally or professionally connected to the reviewer if the connection would lead to dishonest judgment of the manuscript.
11. Manuscripts received by a reviewer should be treated as confidential. It should not be exposed or discussed with others except, maybe to persons from whom specific guidance may be sought; in such a case, the editor should be informed.
12. Reviewers should correct or highlight grammatical errors that may be observed while reading through an article.
13. Reviewers must not disclose or use the manuscript’s content except with the consent of the author.
14. A reviewer should return their comments promptly, usually within ten (10) days after receiving a manuscript. If reviewers require additional time, they should contact the editorial office promptly for additional time or to assign other reviewers.
15. Discussion forums may be created for the reviewers of a manuscript to deliberate on issues regarding the manuscript with the editor. Reviewers should to be of best conduct and should be rational and respectful in their comments as they communicate with other reviewers. Reviewers can disagree with the decision and opinion of another reviewer but in a polite and professional manner.
Reward for Editors/Reviewers:
1. Editors/Reviewers will receive honorary certificates for their inputs towards improving knowledge and developing the world by evaluating our papers.
2. Editors/Reviewers will receive remuneration for the review of papers from January 2019. This is a little thank you token for the effort put into editing each papers and providing experienced and sincere review comments. This amount ranges from 5 USD - 10 USD per article and depends on the following factors: the subject area, the number of words, and especially the review deadline. We encourage reviewers to return their comments within 10 days but preferably earlier.