The Peer Review Mechanism

TNHJ ensures an objective and quick peer review process, with a targeted maximum paper turnaround time of three weeks. All manuscripts are subjected to an internal Editorial review process for conformity with the scope of the journal and guidelines for submitted manuscripts. Articles are then subjected to a blind review by an odd number of reviewers, usually three. The double-blind review process ensures that the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity. The journal’s editorial advisers and peer reviewers are provided with a structured peer review assessment form aimed at achieving an objective review. Academics interested in becoming editorial advisers and peer reviewers should send their expression of intent with a brief profile by email to Processing timelines from submission.

The timelines for the various stages of processing of manuscripts for publication is shown below.

  • Acknowledgement 72 hours
  • Reviews 8 weeks
  • Fast track review 4 weeks
  • Post-review activities to publication 2 weeks

Peer Reviewer Guidelines

Each article is sent to 3 reviewers who have competence on the subject to be reviewed. Reviewers are sent an email request for their review of the article and before they accept the review request, they should make sure their experience fits with the topic of the article for review. Reviews are due 14 days from the initial acceptance of the review assignment. Reviewers who need an extension or wish to decline initial acceptance should contact the section editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned to other reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to state any competing interest in the conduct of specific reviews. Peer reviewers are expected to offer both supportive and constructive feedback to strengthen the manuscript. They should give specific constructive feedback and honest commendation where needed. They can also provide annotations on the blind copy of the manuscript which can direct areas author(s) should deal with. During submission of reviewed manuscripts, reviewers are expected to complete a substantive reviewer’s report using the template provided. They are also expected to give clear recommendations on the article as provided in the submission portion of the website.