Peer reviewers shall be reputable scholars, researchers, innovators and industrialists who are conversant with the developmental trends in their disciplines; with high academic and complimenting professional qualifications. There shall be Thematic Committees constituted from peer reviewers and editors of closely related disciplines or sectors. Members of the Thematic Committees shall take the lead in review of papers submitted under their respective themes. Each thematic committee shall be led by Associate Editor.

Responsibilities of the peer reviewers shall be:

  1. To review manuscripts using the journal criteria and recommend those suitable for publication in the EAJSTI journal;
  2. To provide an objective review report devoid of conflict of interest to the Editor in Chief via the manuscript processing system within the timeframe specified.
  3. To advise the Editor in Chief on any observations from the manuscript that will help to improve its quality;
  4. To provide feedback that will help the author(s) to improve the manuscript or enhance any future submissions;
  5. To maintain confidentiality with regard to any information received in the review process.

Deliverables of peer reviewers

The peer reviewers are expected to deliver the report of the reviewed manuscript

Qualifications, requirements, skills and competences of the Reviewers:

  1. Should preferably have an earned Ph.D. in the relevant subject.
  2. Should have good track record of consistent publishing in peer reviewed journals.
  3. Should hold or have held an academic or research position in recognized University or Research Institution.
  4. Should have demonstrable experience in manuscripts reviewing and editing
  5. Should be available, committed and willing to serve voluntarily

Tenure of the peer reviewers’ members

The tenure of the peer reviewers shall remain open with engagement on a needs basis.

 Review Process

Conventional peer review mode

EAJSTI uses conventional peer review mode which has the following conditions:            

  1. A minimum of three reviewers per manuscript
  2. Reviewers selected from a database, organized by expertise
  3. Reviewers are not required to sign their reviews
  4. A time deadline for returning reviews
  5. Reviewers to be reminded a week before the submission deadline
  6. Authors do not know reviewers' names and institutions
  7. Reviewers do not know the author’s names and institutions
  • Simple, general instructions to reviewers
  • Ask reviewers to provide:
  • Comments for authors
  • Comments for editors
  • Grades on individual components and overall quality of the manuscript
  • Reviewers are not paid for their work but are issued certificates of appreciation at the end of each calendar year;

Peer Review

During the review process:

  1. The editors to consider selecting a minimum of three reviewers per manuscript
  2. A minimum of two responses from the selected reviewers will be acceptable
  3. The review process is to be kept anonymous, applying double blind policy
  4. Reviewers should not be limited to only those registered in the database
  5. There will be time deadline for returning reviews and a reminder before the elapse of the deadline
  6. Reviewers shall provide a general summary of the review and a detailed section by section review report
  7. The review process should ensure that manuscripts submitted to the journal contribute to the body of scientific knowledge
  8. Grades on the overall quality of the manuscript shall be as follow;
  1. - Accept as it is
  2. - Accept with minor changes
  3. - Accept with major changes
  4. – Decline/Reject