About the Journal
Focus and scope
Journal of Humanities is a scholarly and peer-reviewed journal of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Malawi. The journal aims to foster critical and theoretical debates in the areas of classics, fine and performing arts, communication, literature and orature, linguistics, theology and philosophy. The journal publishes original research articles, scholarly opinions, and review articles. Priority is given to articles focusing on East, Central and Southern Africa. JH has a pluralistic and non-partisan approach.
Peer Review
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Manuscripts submitted to JH undergo a thorough peer review process. The main purpose of the review process is to get expert views regarding, among others, the significance; originality; validity; and quality of the submitted manuscript. Because the peer review process adds value to the manuscripts and scholarship in general, JH strives to make the process as robust as possible.
JH’s editorial team acts as the first stage reviewers on all submitted manuscripts. This preliminary screening takes place within the first two weeks of submission. If the manuscript is considered to be of publishable quality, it is then sent to the reviewers.
JH follows the double-anonymous (double-blind) review model. In this model, the manuscript is sent to two anonymous reviewers, that is, the reviewers don’t know the identity of the authors, and vice-versa.
The major stages in the peer review process at JH are summarised in the following flow diagram. Each stage in the flow diagram involves the following processes:
1. The author submits the manuscript through email or an online submission system.
2. The editorial team assesses the submitted manuscript. At this stage, the manuscript may be rejected, accepted for peer review or publishing.
3. Anonymous peer reviewers read the manuscript and make recommendations.
4. The editor-in-chief assesses reviewers’ comments to arrive at the final decision. At this stage, the paper may be rejected or sent back to the author to address reviewers’ comments.
5. The author works on reviewers’ comments following the decision made at stage 4.
6. The author resubmits the revised manuscript.
7. JH accepts the manuscript for publication.
8. JH processes the manuscript (e.g., editing, typesetting).
9. JH publishes the manuscript.
The reviewers
Peer reviewers for JH come from the humanities scholarly community (see JH’s scope). The reviewers are selected from any of the following sources:
• JH’s editorial team
• JH’s already existing database of reviewers
• References from published literature or submitted manuscripts
• Artificial Intelligence tools (e.g., Web of Science tool, Taylor and F rancis reviewer locator tool)
The identified reviewers are then sent invitation letters. The letter includes such details as a brief introduction about JH, title of the manuscript, abstract, deadlines, among others. Based on this information, the prospective reviewer is expected to make the following considerations:
a) Whether they can assess the manuscript.
b) Whether there are any conflicts of interest connected to the ideas in the manuscript.
c) Whether they can meet the stated deadline and any other subsequent deadlines.
The prospective reviewer may give the following replies:
a) Accept to review the manuscript.
b) Decline the invitation citing such reasons as conflict of interest, not being the right expert in the subject area, being unavailable in the given deadlines.
a. The reviewer may instead suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
Reviewers’ tasks and guides
The reviewers read the manuscript in detail and give feedback on many aspects of the manuscript. The reviewers are expected to give detailed feedback in the following JH format:
1. Summary
a) What is the manuscript about?
b) What are the key findings and conclusions?
c) What is the manuscript’s scholarly contribution?
d) What are the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses?
2. Major observations
a) Important points that the author(s) must address for the manuscript to be accepted for publication.
3. Minor observations
a) Some relevant observations which may not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. These observations may improve the work if taken into consideration.
In more specific terms, the reviewers are guided by the following set of questions among others:
a) What is the topic? Is it relevant and interesting to JH’s audience?
b) Is the topic original in the relevant discipline? What new addition does it make to the subject area in relation to the already existing literature?
c) What is the paper’s main argument? Are the conclusions supported by the evidence? Are the research questions fully addressed?
d) Is the paper agreeing or disagreeing with the existing knowledge in the subject area? If agreeing what is the significance of the paper? If disagreeing, are there enough grounds? If there are no strong grounds for disagreeing, what would improve the case?
e) Is the argument crafted clearly? Are there no unstructured, illogical or invalid arguments?
f) If the paper includes illustrations, figures or tables, what value do they add to the paper? Do they enhance the readability and understanding or are they superfluous?
g) Did the work follow best practices in data gathering, e.g. methodology, ethical standards, etc.?
h) Is the language in the paper of acceptable academic level? For example, is the text readable or does it require a professional language editor?
In addition to questions that examine the substantive aspects of the manuscript, some questions assess the technical impeccability of the submission. These may include the following:
a) Are the references in the paper complete and formatted according to JH’s guidelines?
b) Is the abstract a concise summary of the issues addressed in the manuscript?
c) Does the title reflect the content of the paper?
d) Are the keywords an accurate reflection of the content?
e) Is the paper well-structured? Does it include formal sections? Are the sections appropriately numbered and levels shown?
f) Is the paper’s word count within JH’s guidelines?
Post peer review
The editor-in-chief and the editorial team carefully consider the feedback from peer reviewers to make the final decision. Upon making the decision, the editor-in-chief sends the peer review feedback package to the author. This may include the following: the decision letter, the reviewers’ reports and sometimes the original text with reviewers’ in-text comments. The decision letter explains why the editorial board has reached the relevant decision. The author is expected to systematically respond to each raised point to show that the suggested changes have been considered.
Possible outcomes after the review process
The following represent the range of possible outcomes:
a) Accept without any changes: JH will publish the manuscript without any changes. This type of outcome is very unlikely considering the meticulous scrutiny that manuscripts undergo.
b) Accept with minor revisions: JH will publish the manuscript after the author has made some minor corrections.
c) Accept after major revisions: JH considers this as a conditional acceptance because the manuscript will be published only if the author has made the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
d) Reject the paper: JH will not publish the manuscript or accept resubmission even if major changes are made. This decision is common with submissions that are out of the scope of JH or those that are making outlandish claims.
Common reasons for rejection
The first kind of rejection is due to the manuscript’s failure to pass the preliminary test of technical impeccability. Such manuscripts are rejected by the JH’s handling editorial office where routine checks about technical requirements are done. The paper may fail the test of technical impeccability on the following grounds:
a) The manuscript is under review at another journal (submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is forbidden).
b) There is evidence that the manuscript contains plagiarized content.
c) The submission is incomplete; for example, there is missing information such as authors’ names, title, keywords, affiliation of authors, references, substantive content, tables or figures, etc. Other reasons could be that the manuscript or parts of the submission are in unacceptable formats e.g. in some proprietary software unknown to JH.
d) The language is below the minimum threshold such that the paper cannot undergo peer review.
e) The manuscript does not conform to JH’s Author Guidelines (see Author Guidelines).
The second type of rejection is a result of the thorough review process. The reasons for this type of rejection are usually based on the substantive matters of the manuscript.
Ethical standards
Since JH follows the double-anonymous review model, all invited reviewers are expected to keep all details about the review process confidential. If there are any questions, the reviewer must consult the editor-in-chief for clarification or advice.
Open Access Policy
JH 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. All articles are freely available without charge to all users immediately upon publication to ensure that the works are read and built upon by all those interested in academic pursuits. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This free global exchange of knowledge is made possible by financial support from Chancellor College, the University of Malawi, through the Faculty of Humanities. The selflessness and dedication of the editorial board and editorial consultants have also greatly contributed to our ability to freely share the contents of this Journal.
Journal of Humanities implements the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to its published works. With this license users are free to “distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon [the works], even commercially, as long as they credit the authors” who retain copyright of their work with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) license.
Publication Scheduling
JH is a biannual publication.
