Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Africa Digital Governance and Law Review operates a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to promote academic quality, objectivity, fairness, and scholarly integrity.

Initial Editorial Screening

Once received, every manuscript will be initially evaluated by the editors to see if:

1. It relates to the scope and focus of the Journal;
2. It follows the guidelines of the Journal;
3. It is original and of scholarly merit;
4. It complies with publication ethics and research norms; and
5. The outcome of any plagiarism or similarity test, as applicable.

In relation to manuscripts on digital technology, the initial evaluation process may take into consideration the relevance and soundness of the technological, legal, regulatory, or interdisciplinary analysis offered. Manuscripts which do not satisfy the basic editorial, academic, ethical or technical criteria may be outright rejected without going through the external peer review process.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Those manuscripts which manage to pass the initial review process will usually be sent to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the field of the manuscript.  The double-blind peer review process involves the concealment of the identities of the authors and reviewers as far as possible.

Reviewers generally assess manuscripts on the basis of:

1. Originality and contribution to legal, technological, governance, and scholarly knowledge;
2. Methodological rigour and appropriateness;
3. Quality of legal, theoretical, empirical, technological, or interdisciplinary analysis;
4. Clarity, coherence, structure, and organisation;
5. Quality, relevance, and adequacy of references and citations;
6. Accuracy and relevance of technological or digital analysis, where applicable; and
7. The significance, relevance, and potential impact of the research.

Editorial Decisions

Following consideration of the reviewers' reports and the editorial assessment, the Journal may issue one of the following decisions:

1. Accept without revision;
2. Accept subject to minor revisions;
3. Revise and resubmit subject to major revisions; or
4. Reject.

Authors are expected to respond appropriately to reviewers' comments and return revised manuscripts within the period specified by the Editorial Office.

Review Timeline

The Journal aims, where practicable, to complete the peer-review process within 4–8 weeks of submission. However, the actual timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the need to identify suitable reviewers, the interdisciplinary or technological nature of the research, and the time required for authors to undertake revisions.