University of KaminaAnnals of the University of Kamina
ENFRSign inSubmit a manuscript
Search

Peer review policy

Every manuscript submitted to the Annals of the University of Kamina is peer reviewed, double-blind. This page describes exactly the procedure applied.

Double-blind review

Authors do not know who reviews their work, and reviewers do not know who wrote it. This is why an anonymised version of the manuscript is required at submission: it is the only one the platform sends to reviewers. The full manuscript, title page and cover letter are never accessible to them.

Procedure

  1. 01

    Initial check

    The editor-in-chief checks compliance and relevance to the scope of the journal. An out-of-scope manuscript may be rejected at this stage, without external review.

  2. 02

    Assignment

    The submission is assigned to an editor of the relevant section, chosen free of any conflict of interest.

  3. 03

    Inviting reviewers

    The editor invites reviewers according to their field of expertise. They have seven days to accept or decline, and thirty days to return their review.

  4. 04

    Review

    Each review covers eight scored criteria — originality, relevance, methodology, results, discussion, references, scientific quality, writing quality — and concludes with a recommendation. Comments addressed to the authors are passed on; confidential comments to the editor never are.

  5. 05

    Decision

    The section editor makes a recommendation. The final decision rests with the editor-in-chief, and is taken only once at least two reviews have been received.

Conflicts of interest

An editor or reviewer who is an author or co-author of a manuscript may not, under any circumstances, take part in handling it. The platform enforces this automatically: it refuses the assignment and the invitation, and never suggests an author of the manuscript among possible reviewers.

Possible decisions

  • Accepted: the manuscript enters production.
  • Minor revision: limited corrections, usually without further external review.
  • Major revision: substantial rework, followed by a new review round.
  • Rejected: the manuscript cannot be published by the journal as it stands.
  • Desk rejection: decision taken before external review, for an out-of-scope or clearly non-compliant manuscript.