Reviewer Policies
Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)
The African Journal of Botany upholds high standards of transparency and ethical conduct in its peer review process. One of the critical aspects of maintaining the integrity of the review process is ensuring that reviewers declare any conflict of interest (COI) and financial disclosures. The journal is committed to ensuring impartiality and objectivity in the review process, and the following guidelines apply to all reviewers.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity in evaluating a manuscript. These conflicts could arise from various sources, such as financial, personal, or professional relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations associated with the submitted work. A conflict of interest may also occur if a reviewer is currently working with the author(s) on a related project, or if the manuscript is directly related to the reviewer’s own research interests.
To ensure fairness, reviewers are required to disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This disclosure should be made to the journal’s editorial team, who will decide if the reviewer should be recused from the review process or if alternative reviewers should be assigned. If the conflict of interest is not disclosed and discovered later, the manuscript may be rejected, or the decision-making process may be called into question.
By requiring these disclosures, the African Journal of Botany maintains a high level of trust and transparency between the authors, reviewers, and editorial board. It also promotes the fairness and credibility of the review process, ensuring that all decisions are based solely on the merit and quality of the manuscript.
Financial Disclosures
Reviewers are also asked to declare any financial interests that might influence their judgment. This includes any financial ties with commercial entities or funding organizations that may stand to benefit from the publication of the manuscript. Financial disclosures are important to prevent biases in the review process that might arise from personal or financial interests in the research findings.
Reviewers should disclose all relevant financial relationships, such as:
- Paid consultancies
- Employment or financial relationships with the authors or the institutions involved
- Any financial stake in a company or product that the manuscript discusses
- Grants or research funding related to the manuscript topic
These disclosures help prevent any perceived or actual financial bias in the review process, ensuring that decisions are based solely on the quality and scientific merit of the submitted work.
Reviewers Guidelines
The African Journal of Botany relies on its expert reviewers to maintain the scientific integrity and quality of the journal. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring that only high-quality, rigorously conducted research is published. The following guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in carrying out their responsibilities effectively and ethically.
General Responsibilities
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential. The manuscript must not be discussed with colleagues or shared with others without the prior permission of the journal's editorial board.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeline provided by the editorial office. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editor as early as possible to allow for alternative arrangements.
- Objectivity: Reviewers should provide a fair, unbiased, and thorough evaluation of the manuscript. Personal comments about the authors should be avoided, and reviewers should focus on the scientific content and the quality of the research. Their judgment should be based on the merit of the manuscript rather than personal preferences or biases.
- Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and helpful feedback that will help authors improve their work. The review should be focused on suggestions that enhance the clarity, quality, and validity of the research, as well as the overall structure of the manuscript.
Specific Areas of Review
- Originality and Novelty: Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript presents original research that contributes new knowledge or insights to the field of botany. They should ensure that the research question is well-defined and that the manuscript's objectives are clear.
- Methodology: Reviewers should assess the research methods used in the study, ensuring that they are appropriate, robust, and reproducible. They should check whether the data collection and analysis methods are sound and whether statistical techniques are applied correctly.
- Results and Interpretation: Reviewers must ensure that the results are clearly presented, and the interpretation of the data is accurate and supported by the results. Any inconsistencies or errors in data analysis should be flagged.
- Literature Review and References: Reviewers should assess the adequacy of the literature review. The authors should have cited relevant, up-to-date, and authoritative sources to justify their research and place their work within the existing body of knowledge.
- Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should ensure that the authors have adhered to ethical standards in conducting their research. This includes ensuring proper ethical approval for studies involving humans or animals, adherence to data privacy laws, and compliance with any relevant ethical guidelines in the research field.
- Clarity and Presentation: Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's clarity, organization, and readability. The manuscript should be well-written, logically structured, and free of spelling, grammar, and typographical errors.
Recommendations
After completing the review, reviewers must provide a recommendation to the editorial board. Reviewers can recommend:
- Accept: The manuscript meets the standards required for publication.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small changes or clarifications.
- Major Revision: Substantial changes are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or has fundamental flaws.
