Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process:

  1. Initial editorial screening for scope and quality
  2. Assignment to at least two expert reviewers
  3. Review period of 4-6 weeks
  4. Editorial decision based on reviewer recommendations

Ethics Policy

1. Core Principles

We uphold:

  • Integrity: Commitment to truth, accuracy, and intellectual honesty.
  • Ubuntu: Decisions guided by communal responsibility, fairness, and respect.
  • Transparency: Clear processes for handling submissions, corrections, and disputes.
  • Accountability: Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for ethical standards.

2. Author Responsibilities

  • Originality: Submissions must be unpublished and free of plagiarism.
  • Authorship: Include only those who made significant contributions; obtain consent from all co-authors.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Disclose financial, institutional, or personal relationships that may influence work.
  • Data & Sources: Provide accurate citations; preserve raw data for verification.
  • Generative AI: Declare AI use in methodology/analysis; AI cannot be listed as an author.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Impartiality: Evaluate manuscripts objectively, without bias.
  • Confidentiality: Treat submissions as private documents; do not share or misuse content.
  • Timeliness: Promptly decline or complete reviews.
  • Competence: Only review papers within your expertise.

4. Editorial Responsibilities

  • Fairness: Ensure equitable treatment of all submissions.
  • Confidentiality: Protect identities of authors/reviewers.
  • Vigilance: Screen for plagiarism, dual submission, and ethical violations.
  • Corrective Actions: Issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when errors/misconduct occur.

5. Handling Ethical Violations

Allegations (e.g., plagiarism, falsification, authorship disputes) will be investigated:

  • Initial Assessment: Determine validity using COPE guidelines.
  • Investigation: Contact involved parties; request evidence.
  • Resolution: Take action proportionate to severity:
    • Correction for minor errors.
    • Retraction for severe misconduct.
    • Reporting to institutions/funders if needed.
  • Appeals: Authors may contest decisions with new evidence.

6. Special Considerations

  • Cultural Sensitivity: Respect indigenous knowledge and African philosophical traditions.
  • Patient/Community Consent: Required for studies involving human subjects or local communities.
  • Research Data: Encourage open data sharing where ethically feasible.

7. Resources & Support

  • Follow COPE Guidelines for complex cases.
  • Use NDJOP's templates for corrections, retractions, and dispute resolution.
  • Contact [email protected] for ethics queries.

8. Policy Enforcement

  • Violations may result in rejection, retraction, or 3-year submission bans.
  • Repeat offenders reported to their institutions.

Review Frequency: Annually, or as ethics standards evolve.
Alignment: COPE Core Practices • Ubuntu Philosophy • African Values Framework

Adopted: August 5th, 2025
© Niger Delta Journal of Philosophy & African Values. All rights reserved.

Open Access Policy

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.

Skip to main content