Submission Checklist

Authors are required: 

• Read the vision, scope and aim carefully to gain a clearer overall understanding and assess to ensure that your manuscripts suit the IJSIE.
• To use the IJSIE template PDF docuemnt in preparing your manuscripts,
• To ensure that the Publication Ethics, Copyright Policy, Authorship Policy, figure formats, data, and References (APA 6th Edition) arrangement have been carefully considered,
• To ensure that all authors have agreed and covenanted their contents to submit the manuscript.

The GAERPSY Publishing developed a quality-checking phase of the manuscripts' choice for the IJSIE.

Summary of how it works

The IJSIE has a Virtual Editorial Assistant (VEA) attached to it, substantially reducing the traditional editorship's burden. This benefit includes the VEA's ability to follow up on the review's progress more efficiently and update the author (s) accordingly. For example, the VEA is a personal administrator to the journal’s editor and editorial board members. The VEA builds a database of potential reviewers for the IJSIE and receives all papers submitted to the IJSIE on behalf of the editor. Once the VEA receives the paper (s), she/he passes the desk review, including a check to ensure they fit into the journal’s scope. He/she approaches the potential reviewers on the IJSIE database on behalf of the editor. When the VEA approaches potential reviewers, he/she lists available papers for review, ensuring reviewers can pick papers that interest them. When the VEA has received the requisite number of reviews for a paper, he/she sends them to the editor. The role of the editor here basically is to review the review of the reviewers and raise additional issues not captured by the reviewers, if necessary, not to carry out a fresh review of the paper. Almost all papers submitted to us and reviewed are either rejected outright or require Major or Minor Corrections.  

Components of the review process

PHASE 1: Basic checking

The VEA initially receives articles and checks their academic quality, plagiarism, and proofreading tests. These may determine their fitness to the Vision, Scope and Aims of the Journal. 

• Academic quality test

The VEA reviews the academic quality of the paper, which consists of checking the rigor, thoroughness, and relevance it demonstrates in its research, analysis, and writing, ensuring it meets the standards expected in academic discourse. 

• Plagiarism test

Every paper that has passed the academic quality stage of the review process is taken through a plagiarism test. This consists of a similarity check, uses software to compare a piece of writing against a database of existing content, and identifies any copied or paraphrased text without proper attribution (see Plagiarism policy). The journal’s VEA coordinates the plagiarism test.

When submitting papers for evaluation, authors are strongly encouraged to run their papers through anti-plagiarism software to ensure the similarities are within the acceptable threshold. Without prejudice to this, however, every paper accepted for publication in the journal will also have to pass the company’s similarity check (See plagiarism policy).

• Proofreading test

After the second state, the language proofreading tests how well each accepted paper has been proofread. Author (s) is advised to professionally proofread his/her paper after it (they) has been accepted for academic quality. When the author (s) submits a clean copy of his/her paper after the revised copy has been accepted, we give our language editors a sample of the work, who will use track changes to proofread it. If the work is rejected, the affected authors will see clearly through the track changes why that was the case, and they are advised either to read over the work more carefully or to get the paper professionally proofread depending on the extent of the proofreading errors identified. Though we offer a proofreading service, it is not a condition for publishing any paper.

Generally, once we comment on the quality of the proofreading, we decline to offer our proofreading service to avoid any conflict of interest. If we offer a proofreading service, authors are asked to grade the quality of the proofreading, and where an author grades it less than 6/10, the paper is sent out for another round of proofreading at our expense. The VEA also coordinates the proofreading test of the paper.

After assessing the rudimentary checking of the paper, the following decisions could affect the paper:

• Paper rejection: If the paper lies outside the scope of the IJSIE or the submission is not in conformity with established requirements,
• Paper submission elsewhere: The VEA may recommend that the author (s) submit the paper elsewhere.
• Accept after major revisions (Conditional acceptance): A paper is deemed accepted for publication only after passing through the three components of the review process, as discussed above.

The IJSIE will publish the article if the author (s) make suggested changes by the VEA, reviewers, and/or editors. The author (s) must attend all requested updates and resubmit the manuscript. After corrections are made, the VEA editor will review the updated version to see if the suggested changes have been faithfully attended.

• Assign reviewers: The paper will go through the peer review process.

PHASE 2: Academic peer review process

The IJSIE provides detailed explanations of the academic peer review process.

• Internal and external article reviews

The IJSIE may employ internal and/or external article reviews.

Internal article review means that a Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal can be asked to review an article (provided the person is not connected to any of the article's authors).

External article review means that scholars who have no connection to the journal but have relevant expertise can also be approached to review a paper for the journal. Here, in approaching a potential Review, the VEA lists available papers for review, which ensures the scholar picks papers in his/her areas of interest.

• Double-blind reviewed

The IJSIE adopts a double-blind review for each article, meaning that the identities of the reviewer and author in each case must be concealed throughout the review process.  This also means that in submitting articles for consideration, authors should have a separate page for their names and institutional affiliations and should take care to ensure that their names or institutional affiliations are not revealed in the article they wish to be considered for publication. 

• Using peer review form

The IJSIE recommends that all reviewers comment on the reviewed article on the peer review form. This is a structured tool that peer reviewers can use to address feedback or comments on a paper. Reviewers are further encouraged to make other comments on the body of the article to better guide the author (s) when revising the paper. 

The comments of an article are based on the average score provided by various peer reviewers. The peer reviewers mark a submitted paper on four scales: Excellent (4), Good (3), Moderate (2), and Poor (1).

A paper with an average score of under three (3) may be rejected for publication. However, a manuscript with a score higher than three (3) is accepted when an editor, VEA, or reviewer considers it suitable for publication.

After completion of the procedures mentioned above, the editorial office will issue official letters mentioning one of the following decisions:

Rejection of the manuscript/Not recommended for publication

The IJSIE can still not recommend a manuscript for publication or reject it if it is deemed unsuitable. Various reasons could be considered as follows.

• The manuscript lacks scientific objectivity, rigour, or lack of originality,
• The manuscript is outside of the aim and scope for the publication,
• The submission does not conform to the formal requirements or Publication Ethics, Submission Guidelines,
• The author (s) failed to make sufficient changes based on the reviewers’ comments and the IJSIE policies,
• The manuscript contains some emotional content that could mislead readers,
• The manuscript reveals confidential information without appropriate authorisation, etc.

Revisions of the manuscript are required

Paper revision guidelines

• In resubmitting the paper after revision, the author (s) must outline how the recommended corrections were implemented and addressed on a separate page. This should be done in a two-column table with the relevant number of rows. The first column should indicate the reviewer’s comments being addressed, the second column of the corresponding row should indicate how each comment/recommendation was implemented, and the page number where the implemented corrections can be found. Author (s) who disagree with a particular reviewer’s comments can also state such in the correction log and give their reasons for disagreeing with the reviewers' views on the issue.
• Where two reviewers recommended a major revision, the revised paper should be sent to one or both reviewers to confirm that the recommended corrections were satisfactorily implemented.  
• Where the editor disagrees with the opinion of one or both reviewers, he/she can ask for a third reviewer. An editor cannot override the concurrent opinion of two reviewers. 
• Where the original reviewer (s) declines to review the work again, the revised paper and the original paper are submitted for review, and the reviewers' comments shall be sent to another reviewer, who will decide whether the recommended corrections have been implemented satisfactorily or not.
• Where one reviewer recommends major corrections and another reviewer recommends minor corrections, the journal’s editor (or Guest editor, as the case may be) shall decide which of the recommended corrections the author will implement.
• Where both reviewers recommended minor corrections, the editor can decide, based on the resubmission of the paper and the review of the corrections log, whether the recommended corrections were satisfactorily implemented or not.

Acceptance of the manuscript for publication in the next issue

If the article is accepted for publication, it goes to the next stage, the publication process. 

NOTES

In addition to passing through the three components of the review process, it is important to note:

• No author can publish more than one paper (singly or jointly) in any paper issue.
• No author can publish in a journal back-to-back issue.
• The maximum number of papers to be published from one institution is two.

The author (s) is updated every four weeks on the progress of articles submitted to the journal for publication. The IJSIE is committed to its policy, and the administrative office must reply to any inquiry within hours of receiving it during working hours. Author (s) and inquirer (s) who cannot receive an acknowledgment of their inquiries within 24 hours (provided the submission was made during working hours) are encouraged to do a follow-up email to complains@gaerpsy.com and copy editor-ijsie@gaerpsy.com and put ‘Complaint’ on the subject line.

PHASE 3: Procedure for the Publication 

The procedure for the publication in the IJSIE is described as follows:

• After the article is accepted for publication, the author (s) should receive an official acceptance letter at the IJSIE.
• Author (s) should comply with the Article Processing Charges (APC),
• Author (s) should receive an official letter containing a link to the article and a notification that his/her (their) article has been published.
• After the completion of the layout of the papers accepted for publication, a PDF of each article is sent to the corresponding author to check for errors.
• The corresponding author is usually given a time frame of approximately three working days to respond. This allows the IJSIE to work within tight deadlines.
• Any corresponding author that fails to respond within the stipulated time frame will be deemed to have approved the article for publication, and any error detected after the publication will be the author’s liability. 
• Suppose an author (s) withdraws his/her paper after the layout is concluded. In that case, any publication fee paid cannot be refunded as this will be used to cover the cost of re-doing the layout (see Refund policy). 
• The author (s) must sign and return the author’s agreement forms before the start of the layout; without the signed author’s agreement form, a paper cannot be published.

Time frame for completing the review of articles

• The IJSIE aims to get a decision on any paper submitted to us within 4 to 8 weeks. However, given that we depend on the generosity of reviewers, this time frame could sometimes be unrealistic, as we received massive submissions. A fast peer review can take 2 to 4 weeks.
• The IJSIE is committed to updating authors on the progress of articles submitted. We will respond to any inquiry to our office and reply to you within working hours. 
• If you submitted an article to us or an inquiry but have not received any acknowledgment within 24 hours (provided the submission was made during working hours), kindly send a follow-up email to complains@gaerpsy.com and copy editor-ijsie@gaerpsy.com. On the subject line, write ‘Complaint.’

Factors delaying the peer review process and publication of accepted articles

In addition to getting reviewers, other factors that could delay the time it takes for a decision to be reached on an article or for the article to be published after acceptance include: 

• When the author (s) sends an article to the wrong email address, all submissions are made to editor-ijsie@gaerpsy.com (or HERE).  
• An editor may express displeasure with the quality of the review of an article by one (or both reviewers) and ask that a new reviewer (or even another two reviewers for a journal that uses two reviewers) be found for the paper. 
• We do not publish more than two authors from one institution in any issue of our journals, so if the journal has already accepted two articles from one institution for the issue of the journal, it delays the publication of other accepted papers from the same institution for the issue of the journal.
• No author can publish more than one article (singly or jointly) in IJSIE or in successive issues. This means that an author who has more than one paper accepted for publication (either singly or jointly) or has published in the previous issue of the journal will experience some delays in having his accepted paper published.
• Suppose an author’s article fails the language or plagiarism test. In that case, the final decision on the paper is delayed until the author’s paper passes the three components of the review process: academic quality review, language test, and plagiarism test.

Guest editorship

The IJSIE recognises that academics work under challenging conditions and that their volume of official work may suddenly change, such as marking examination scripts, being involved in consultancy work, etc.

Since publishing timeously is an article of faith for us. However, the IJSIE does not want to overburden our editors, so it encourages them to inform us when their volume of work has increased so that they will be left with little or no time to attend to the journal's demands.