Peer Review Process

All manuscripts are peer reviewed prior to publication. The JNASR utilizes a triple-blind peer review process, to ensure originality, scholarly relevance, and readability, which means that both the reviewer and author’s identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors are required to submit manuscripts that would not give away their identity.

After respective submission deadlines, members of the Editorial Committee read all submissions and agree which should go forward to the review process. Referees are then assigned by the Committee from a pool of referees according to their expertise. Reviewers are sent a manuscript review template (attached), which provides guidance on key review indicators and on how to communicate review results.

The factors that are taken into account in the review are as follows:

1. Relevance: Is this paper relevant to the thematic focus of this journal?
2. Originality: Are the results/ideas novel and previously unpublished?
3. Significance: Does the paper canvass and discuss ideas that significantly advance knowledge
4. Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete?
5. Are the claims supported by theoretical/ experimental/empirical results?
6. Ethics: Is there any ethical issue?
7. Readability: Is the paper well organized and easy to understand?
8. Language: Is the paper written in correct English and style?
9. Citations: Are all sources properly cited in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA), which is the house style for the journal?

Referees may accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or require a revision for style and/or content. Each Reviewer will give a recommendation about publication of a manuscript according to the following list of options:

• Accept- No revision needed.
• Accept- Minor revisions needed.
• Major revisions needed- Suggest revision & resubmission.
• Reject- provide appropriate reasons in comments.

Misconduct
1. Misconduct constitutes violation of this editorial policy, journal policies, publication ethics, or any applicable guidelines/policies specified by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement should adhere to (PEMS). Any other activities that threaten/compromise the integrity of the research/publication process are potential misconducts. Suspected cases of misconduct will be investigated according to COPE guidelines

Correction and retraction of articles
2. Corrections may be made to a published article with the authorization of the editor of the journal. Editors will decide the magnitude of the corrections. Minor corrections are made directly to the original article. However, in cases of major corrections, the original article will remain unchanged, while the corrected version will also be published. Both the original and corrected version will be linked to each other. A statement indicating the reason for the major change to the article will also be published. When necessary, retraction of articles will be done according to COPE retraction guidelines

After the reviewer’s report is received, the paper is assigned to an Associate Editor for the review/redrafting/editing process, which can be substantial, depending on the article. Upon receipt of the revised article from the author, and after final approval by referees and associated editor, the Editor-in-Chief reviews the paper and makes a final determination on whether or not to include the paper for publication in the JNASR based on the recommendations of the reviewers and associated editor. The Editor-in-Chief then issues a written confirmation of acceptance or rejection to the author. Once an article is accepted, the Managing Editor will carry out a thorough desk edit and liaise with Igbinedion University Press/the author/Associate Editor over author queries, publisher proofs and corrections.

The JNASR strives to ensure that the time between submission and final decision is as reasonable as possible, without compromising quality.

Contact Information

1. General correspondence:For more information about the journal and for subscriptions, please contact, email: [email protected], Phone: +2348033205593,  +234 81 64004804

2. Managing Editor:name:  Professor  Denloye, Abiodun A. email: [email protected], [email protected]

3. Editor-in-Chief:Professor Anyanwu, Longy O., email: [email protected]

Journal Complaints Procedure
This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of The JNASR’s editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity for us to further improve our practices and processes, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively. The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about.

How to make a complaint

The best way to reach us is by email. Please send all complaints to the attention of the Editorial Secretary, JNASR via, cnasjournal@iuokada.edu.ng.

All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days. If possible a full response will be made within four weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within four weeks. Further interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved.

If the complainant is not happy with the resolution he or she can ask for the complaint to be escalated to the respective Associate Editors or the Managing Editor.

Whenever possible complaints will be dealt with by Editorial Secretary. If the Editorial Secretary cannot deal with the complaint, he or she will refer it to an Associate Editor or the Managing Editor.

Complaints that are not under the control of The JNASR’s editorial staff will be sent to the relevant heads of department. Complaints about editorial matters that are sent to the chairman of the JNASR Editorial Board will usually be referred in the first instance to the editor (and invariably if they relate to editorial content, for which the editor is wholly responsible).

If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final.

The rigor of a peer review system ensures the quality of a research article. Academic Journals employs a rigorous peer review system. All submitted manuscripts undergo a peer review process before publication.

Triple Blind Peer Review
The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It enables authors to improve their manuscripts and aids editors in making decision on manuscripts. This Academic Journal employs a Triple-blind peer review system.

A triple-blind peer review system is an anonymous review system whereby the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript is concealed from the selected reviewers. All details that may enable a reviewer to identify the author(s) of a manuscript are removed from the manuscript before the manuscript is sent to the reviewer. Similarly, the reviewers’ identities are also concealed from the author(s) when sending the reviewers’ comments to the author(s).

Academic Journals considers the double-blind peer system as a more effective review system because it limits possible bias from either the selected reviewers or from authors.

The Peer Review Process
The Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences Research employs a three-stage review process – editorial office, external review and editors’ decision.

The first stage of the review process takes place in the editorial office. On submission, a manuscript is reviewed to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements of the journal before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for the following

1. Possible plagiarism: The manuscript is evaluated to compare the level of similarity with other published works. The Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences Research uses iThenticate plagiarism detection system to achieve this goal. Manuscripts that have high level of similarity with other works (including the author(s) previous works) are rejected at this stage. Authors are provided with the similarity report together with the decision to reject the manuscript. The Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences Research is a member of SimilarityCheck. Similarity Check powered by iThenticate is an initiative of CrossRef to help its members to prevent plagiarism.

2. Scope: After a manuscript has undergone similarity check and the level of similarity is judged to be appropriate, the content of the manuscript is checked to ensure that it fits within the scope of the journal selected by the author(s). In situations where the content of the manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal.

3. The manuscript still undergoes the usual peer review and may be accepted or reject if it is not suitable.

4. Recent references: The Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences Research encourages authors to cite more recent articles. Preferably, considerable number of the cited articles should be works that were published within the last five years. This is especially important for articles submitted to JNASR.

5. English Language: The Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences Research (JNASR) currently publishes full text of articles only in English language. Abstracts may be translated to other languages and published alongside the English language abstract.

6. Manuscripts are checked for the structure, organization, correctness and clarity of the language as it adheres to the journal’s Instructions for Authors. The editorial office usually makes correction to minor grammatical errors in such a manner that it does not alter the manuscript. However, in situations where language is substantially difficult to comprehend, the manuscript is returned to the author to improve clarity of the language.

Manuscript that fails in this first stage of the review process are returned to the author(s) for modification and resubmission. This first stage of the review is very important as it enables the author(s) improve the manuscript at an early stage. This first stage of the manuscript review is usually completed within a week.

Once a manuscript successfully completes the editorial office review process, it proceeds to the second stage. The second stage of the review process employs the triple-blind review system. A minimum of three external reviewers are selected from our database, editorial board of the journal or other sources. These reviewers have expert knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript. The reviewers are invited to review the manuscript by sending them the abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the full text of the manuscript is sent to the reviewers after the author(s) have been concealed.

Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestion about the manuscript;

1. Requires minor corrections
2. Requires moderate revision
3. Requires major revision
4. Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript will not be further processed.

It should be noted that though a reviewer may give a positive report on a particular manuscript, if another reviewer raises concerns that may fundamentally undermine the study and results the manuscript may be rejected.

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office reviews the comment. If the two of three reviewers comment positively to accept the paper, it proceeds to the next phase. The reviewers’ identities are concealed from the author(s). The total time taken to complete the second stage of the manuscript review is dependent on the availability of the reviewers. However, it is usually completed between one to four weeks.

Using the reviewers’ comments, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. The original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to an editor of the journal. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one the following decisions

1. Accept as it is
2. Accept with minor correction
3. Requires major corrections
4. Send revised manuscript for review again
5. Reject

Manuscripts that are accepted, as is, are scheduled for publication. Manuscripts that require corrections (either minor or major) are sent to the author(s) to affect the corrections suggested by the editor. After effecting the corrections, the editor reviews the manuscripts again before the manuscripts are accepted for publication. In some cases, the editor may require authors to make corrections a second time. In other cases, the editor may request for the revised manuscripts with (or without) the additional corrections to be sent to a specific reviewer who had earlier reviewed the manuscript before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Publication Frequency
This journal now publishes two issues per volume, and one volume per year.

Paper submission fees
This journal charges no submission fees, but may charge for processing fees.

Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access. 

All articles are provided for free download under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License