Peer Review Policy

All research articles submitted to NJRST are subject to initial editorial screening and, where suitable, formal peer review. The purpose of peer review is to support the publication of high-quality, original, relevant and ethically sound scholarship that falls within the journal’s aims and scope.

Initial editorial screening

All submissions are first screened by the editorial team to determine whether they are suitable for peer review. At this stage, the editors consider whether the submission:

  • falls within the aims and scope of NJRST;
  • presents original and relevant scholarship;
  • addresses a clear research question, problem, objective or scholarly contribution;
  • engages appropriately with relevant literature;
  • demonstrates methodological or conceptual rigour;
  • complies with the journal’s ethical and publication policies;
  • follows the author guidelines and submission requirements; and
  • is written clearly enough to be assessed by reviewers.

Submissions that are outside the scope of the journal, do not meet basic scholarly requirements, duplicate previously published work, or are not yet sufficiently developed for peer review may be declined at this stage.

Peer-review process

Submissions accepted for further consideration are assigned to an editor or editorial board member who manages the review process. NJRST uses a blind peer-review process. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise, methodological knowledge, disciplinary experience or familiarity with the field addressed by the submission.

Research articles are normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, fair and evidence-based feedback to assist the editors in making a decision and to support authors in improving their work.

Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to consider, where applicable:

  • originality and significance;
  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • clarity of the research question, problem, objective or argument;
  • adequacy of the literature review;
  • appropriateness and rigour of the methodology;
  • ethical soundness of the research;
  • quality of analysis, findings, interpretation and discussion;
  • contribution to knowledge, practice, policy, innovation or development;
  • relevance to Namibia, Africa or wider scholarly and professional communities;
  • clarity, coherence and organisation of the manuscript; and
  • accuracy, completeness and relevance of references.

For local or context-specific studies, reviewers may also consider whether the manuscript explains its relevance to a broader scholarly, policy, professional or public audience.

Editorial decisions

After peer review, the editor handling the manuscript makes a recommendation to the editorial team. The final editorial decision rests with the journal’s editors.

Possible decisions include:

  • accept;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • revise and resubmit;
  • reject.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised submissions may be assessed by the editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers where necessary. Authors should submit a response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Timelines

NJRST aims to conduct peer review as efficiently as possible. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the submission, disciplinary field and the extent of revisions required. Authors will be informed where substantial delays occur.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors, editorial board members, reviewers and editorial staff may not share, discuss or use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript except for the purposes of the journal’s editorial and peer-review process. Refer to the Privacy Statement.

Conflicts of interest in peer review

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts may include personal, professional, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative or competitive relationships with the author(s), their institution(s), funders or research topic.

Where a conflict exists, the editor or reviewer should withdraw from the handling or review of the manuscript.

Review of editor-authored submissions

Where an editor, editorial board member or NCRST staff member submits to NJRST, the manuscript will be handled by an independent editor who is not involved as an author and who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor or staff member will not participate in the editorial decision-making process for that submission.

Updated: 21 May 2026