African Scientific Reports (ASR), published by the Nigerian Society of Physical Sciences, seeks applications from outstanding scientists in any field of Natural Sciences, Medical Sciences and Engineering with an international reputation for research excellence to contribute to the future direction of the journal and thought-provoking original research publications.
Peer Review Process
Editorial Board Assessment
The ASR Editorial Board consists of members and some non members of NSPS who are both scientists and experts in their fields of expertise. The Editor-in-Chief, upon submission, will assigns your paper to an Editor in one of the ASR disciplines. The Editor reviews the manuscript for plagiarism via the Turn-It-In. If the similarity index falls lower than 25% and also satisfy other requirements of the journal, the Editor will process the manuscript further and assign it to reviewers. It is worth nothing that the Board may decide to reject manuscripts, and not require further review. They can also decide to reject manuscripts that aren't in compliance with ASR standards.
Independent Peer Review
All submissions are reviewed at least by two experts. Even though an Editor usually needs two independent reviews, a single negative review is sufficient to decide if the Editor agrees with the report. The identity of reviewers remain anonymous and not disclosed unless the reviewers give permission. All submissions will be subject to a blind peer review (Anonymous Reviewer). The Editor evaluates the reviews' opinions and makes a recommendation to the Editorial Board, who makes the final decision. Based on the recommendations,
the manuscript may be accepted.
the manuscript may be rejected; or
the reviewers' reports may be sent to the authors for revision.
If the article is found to contain too many errors for the reviewers to comment fully on the content of the article, the authors will be required to make major revisions and then resubmit the paper for reviews.
The decision of the Board is communicated by the Editor to the Author. It is worth mentioning that the acceptance rate is currently 25%.
Submission of Revised Manuscripts
When authors have revised their manuscript in response to the referees' comments, they are asked to add their replies to the comments on the first page of their revised manuscript for onward transmission to the reviewers. The revised version may be returned to the original reviewers who are then asked whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily. Depending on the reviewers' comments, the article may be accepted or re-review.
Decision on Manuscript
When a manuscript is out of scope for ASR, does not fulfill ASR's requirements for novelty and relevance, the turn-it-in similarities index exceeds 25%, or has technical flaws that raise doubts about the results' trustworthiness, editors might reject it. Sometimes, an already reviewed manuscript can still be rejected due to a lack of originality or relevance, or to technical issues discovered during the peer-review. More other reasons why an article may not be accepted for publication is when a substantial number of potential reviewers decline the invitation to review, for example, it indicates that the paper's aim and audience do not align with ASR's. In these circumstances, the editors will return the paper to the authors so that they might submit it to a more appropriate publication outlet.
Within 30 days of the manuscript's rejection, authors can appeal the decision by getting in touch with the editorial office (firstname.lastname@example.org). The appeal must be supported with text modifications and a concise (one-page) explanation of why the manuscript should be reconsidered. Appeal must clarify the importance and the merits of the paper if it was rejected by editors for not meeting the ASR's mandate or for not meeting the standards of ASR for novelty and importance. The appeal must address technical questions raised by the reviewers. Your appeal should address the acceptance criteria of ASR. Take note that, in the event that your submission was rejected at the initial stage, you will require additional information or arguments that go above what the editor was read during the review process. This will enable the editor to determine whether your article deserves to be considered again.