Editorial Policies
Peer Review Process
All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process:
- Initial editorial screening for scope and quality
- Assignment to at least two expert reviewers
- Review period of 4-6 weeks
- 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- Originality: Submissions must be unpublished and free of plagiarism.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.