PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process

The Editorial Board of the Nigerian Journal of Technical Education (NJTE) is committed to ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively and rigorously.

NJTE publishes scholarly work across all spheres of learning, with particular emphasis on:

  • Science
  • Technical education
  • Vocational education
  • Engineering
  • Applied research
  • Adaptive technology

Double-Blind Peer Review

NJTE operates a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

This system is intended to:

  • Promote impartiality
  • Minimize inappropriate bias
  • Protect reviewer independence
  • Encourage constructive scholarly assessment

Initial Editorial Assessment

After submission, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript to determine whether:

  • It falls within the journal's scope.
  • It presents a meaningful scholarly contribution.
  • It complies with NJTE submission requirements.
  • It meets basic standards of academic writing and research integrity.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope or fail to satisfy minimum requirements may be declined without external peer review.

Similarity and Integrity Screening

Before external review, manuscripts may undergo:

  • Similarity assessment
  • Plagiarism screening
  • Reference checking
  • Formatting assessment
  • Ethical compliance review

Manuscripts with unacceptable levels of copied, fabricated or improperly attributed material may be rejected.

External Peer Review

Suitable manuscripts are normally evaluated by independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission.

Reviewers assess issues such as:

  • Originality
  • Relevance
  • Research design
  • Technical or methodological quality
  • Accuracy
  • Clarity
  • Interpretation
  • Contribution to knowledge
  • Educational, scientific, technical or policy significance

Possible Editorial Decisions

The editorial decision may include:

  • Accept
  • Accept subject to minor revision
  • Major revision required
  • Resubmit for review
  • Reject

The final publication decision rests with the appropriate editorial authority of NJTE.

Revised Manuscripts

Authors submitting revisions should provide a clear response to reviewer comments.

Responses should:

  • Address each substantive comment.
  • Identify changes made.
  • Explain respectfully where a suggested change has not been adopted.
  • Provide revised manuscript sections where appropriate.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers.

Grounds for Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected where it:

  • Falls outside NJTE's scope.
  • Does not make a meaningful contribution to knowledge.
  • Contains substantial plagiarism.
  • Presents unreliable or fabricated data.
  • Contains serious methodological deficiencies.
  • Fails to address reviewer concerns adequately.
  • Does not comply with journal requirements.
  • Has insufficient scholarly or technical originality.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual or procedural misunderstanding may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office.

An appeal should:

  • Identify the manuscript clearly.
  • Explain the basis for reconsideration.
  • Address the scientific, technical or procedural issues involved.
  • Respond directly to reviewer or editorial concerns.

Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Publication Timeline

Where the Editorial Board has formally adopted specific turnaround targets, NJTE may publicly display them.

Editorial timelines should be treated as targets rather than absolute guarantees because processing time depends on:

  • Availability of appropriate reviewers
  • Manuscript quality
  • Complexity of the research
  • Author response time
  • Number and extent of revisions required