Peer Review Process

Africa Journal of Health and Environmental Law (AJHEL)

Promoting Health, Protecting the Environment, Advancing Justice and Sustainability in Africa

The Africa Journal of Health and Environmental Law (AJHEL) operates a structured and rigorous peer-review process designed to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological integrity and relevance of published research.

The process applies particularly to research articles and other scholarly contributions requiring external peer review.

1. MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION

Authors submit manuscripts through the Journal's designated submission platform or official editorial submission channel.

At submission, authors are expected to provide:

  • Complete manuscript;

  • Author details;

  • Institutional affiliations;

  • Abstract;

  • Keywords;

  • Corresponding-author information;

  • Funding declaration, where applicable;

  • Conflict-of-interest declaration;

  • Ethics statement, where applicable; and

  • Generative AI disclosure, where applicable.

The manuscript must comply with AJHEL's Authors' Guidelines.

2. INITIAL EDITORIAL SCREENING

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment.

The Editorial Office examines whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within AJHEL's scope;

  • Makes a substantive scholarly contribution;

  • Meets basic formatting requirements;

  • Is sufficiently developed for peer review;

  • Contains appropriate references;

  • Meets research-ethics requirements where applicable; and

  • Complies with the Journal's publication policies.

Manuscripts that are substantially outside the Journal's scope or fail to satisfy essential requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected at this stage.

3. ORIGINALITY AND PLAGIARISM SCREENING

Manuscripts may undergo plagiarism and originality screening before being sent to external reviewers.

The Review considers:

  • Direct copying;

  • Inadequate paraphrasing;

  • Unattributed ideas;

  • Duplicate publication;

  • Excessive text recycling;

  • Fabricated references; and

  • Other forms of academic misconduct.

A similarity percentage alone does not determine plagiarism. The Editorial Board considers the nature, extent, location and context of identified similarities.

Where significant concerns arise, the manuscript may be returned to the author for clarification or rejected in accordance with the Journal's Plagiarism and Academic Integrity Policy.

4. EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT

Following initial screening, the handling editor assesses the manuscript's:

  • Originality;

  • Relevance;

  • Scholarly significance;

  • Legal or theoretical contribution;

  • Methodological soundness;

  • Quality of evidence;

  • Engagement with relevant literature;

  • African relevance; and

  • Potential contribution to health, environmental and legal scholarship.

If the manuscript is considered suitable, it proceeds to external peer review.

5. SELECTION OF PEER REVIEWERS

AJHEL normally seeks at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript.

Depending on the topic, reviewers may be selected from fields such as:

  • Health law;

  • Environmental law;

  • Public health;

  • Medicine;

  • Environmental science;

  • Human rights;

  • Bioethics;

  • Climate law;

  • Healthcare regulation;

  • Environmental governance;

  • Public policy;

  • Sustainable development; and

  • Related interdisciplinary fields.

Reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise and their ability to provide an independent scholarly assessment.

6. DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

AJHEL normally operates a double-blind peer-review process for research articles.

Under this model:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors; and

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

The purpose is to promote impartial assessment and minimise potential bias.

Authors should therefore avoid unnecessarily identifying themselves within the main manuscript where anonymous review is required.

7. REVIEWER ASSESSMENT

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to appropriate scholarly criteria, including:

Originality

Does the manuscript make an original contribution?

Relevance

Does the manuscript address an issue within AJHEL's scope?

Scholarly Contribution

Does the work advance existing knowledge?

Literature

Does the manuscript adequately engage with relevant scholarship?

Legal Analysis

Where applicable, are legislation, cases, regulations and legal principles accurately analysed?

Methodology

Is the research methodology appropriate and sufficiently rigorous?

Evidence

Are claims adequately supported by credible evidence?

Health and Environmental Significance

Where applicable, does the study meaningfully address health, environmental protection, environmental justice or sustainable development?

African Context

Does the research appropriately engage with African legal, institutional, health, environmental or socioeconomic realities?

Conclusions

Are the conclusions supported by the research?

Recommendations

Where applicable, are recommendations relevant, realistic and evidence-based?

8. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  1. Accept

  2. Accept with Minor Revisions

  3. Major Revisions Required

  4. Revise and Resubmit

  5. Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

9. EDITORIAL DECISION

After receiving the reviewer reports, the handling editor considers:

  • Reviewer recommendations;

  • Reviewer comments;

  • Manuscript quality;

  • Author responses, where applicable;

  • Ethical considerations; and

  • The overall suitability of the manuscript for AJHEL.

The editor may:

  • Accept the manuscript;

  • Request minor revisions;

  • Request major revisions;

  • Request another round of peer review; or

  • Reject the manuscript.

10. AUTHOR REVISION

Where revisions are requested, authors should carefully address reviewer comments.

Authors should normally provide a response to reviewers explaining:

  • Each major comment;

  • The action taken;

  • The changes made;

  • The location of changes in the revised manuscript; and

  • A reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been adopted.

Authors are expected to respond professionally and substantively.

11. SECOND-ROUND REVIEW

Where substantial revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers.

The second-round review may determine whether:

  • Major concerns have been addressed;

  • The revised manuscript meets the required scholarly standard;

  • Further changes are necessary; or

  • The manuscript is ready for final editorial consideration.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor.

12. CONFLICTING REVIEWER REPORTS

Where reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

  • Assess the reports independently;

  • Request clarification;

  • Seek an additional reviewer;

  • Request further revision; or

  • Make a decision based on the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

A disagreement between reviewers does not automatically result in rejection.

13. ADDITIONAL REVIEW

An additional reviewer may be appointed where:

  • The manuscript is highly interdisciplinary;

  • Specialist expertise is required;

  • Reviewer recommendations conflict significantly;

  • Ethical or methodological questions remain unresolved; or

  • The editor requires an independent additional assessment.

14. FINAL ACCEPTANCE

A manuscript is formally accepted only after the Editorial Board or authorised editor determines that it satisfies the Journal's academic, ethical and publication requirements.

Acceptance may be subject to completion of final editorial corrections.

15. COPYEDITING AND PRODUCTION

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production.

The production process may include:

  1. Copyediting;

  2. Language editing;

  3. Reference checking;

  4. Formatting;

  5. Tables and figure preparation;

  6. Typesetting;

  7. Metadata preparation;

  8. Proofreading; and

  9. Final publication.

Authors may be asked to review page proofs before publication.

16. AUTHOR PROOF REVIEW

Authors should carefully check proofs for:

  • Typographical errors;

  • Author names;

  • Affiliations;

  • Tables;

  • Figures;

  • References;

  • Legal citations;

  • Statistical values; and

  • Other factual or production errors.

Proof corrections should normally be limited to necessary corrections rather than major rewriting.

17. PUBLICATION

After final editorial approval, the article is published through the AJHEL publication platform.

Published articles are made available according to the Journal's Open Access Policy and applicable licence terms.

Where applicable, article metadata and DOI information are registered and made available through relevant scholarly infrastructure.

18. CONFIDENTIALITY

Manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential throughout the review process.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose unpublished information or use information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

19. REVIEWER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest.

A reviewer should decline an assignment where a conflict could reasonably affect impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with an author;

  • Close personal relationships;

  • Professional competition;

  • Financial interests;

  • Institutional relationships; or

  • Other circumstances that could compromise independence.

20. REVIEWER CONDUCT

Reviewers should:

  • Remain objective;

  • Provide constructive criticism;

  • Avoid personal attacks;

  • Avoid discriminatory comments;

  • Support substantive criticisms with reasoning;

  • Identify significant errors;

  • Respect confidentiality; and

  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe.

21. GENERATIVE AI DURING PEER REVIEW

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, patient information or other protected material into generative AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent academic judgment.

22. ETHICAL CONCERNS DURING REVIEW

If reviewers identify potential:

  • Plagiarism;

  • Fabricated data;

  • Falsified findings;

  • Unethical research;

  • Duplicate publication;

  • Fabricated references; or

  • Other serious misconduct,

they should confidentially notify the handling editor.

The editor will handle the concern according to AJHEL's applicable publication-ethics policies.

23. APPEALS

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe there has been:

  • A significant procedural error;

  • A serious conflict of interest;

  • A material misunderstanding of the manuscript; or

  • Failure to consider important evidence.

Appeals should be specific, reasoned and supported by relevant information.

The Editorial Board may conduct an additional assessment or seek an independent review.

24. INDICATIVE TIMELINE

AJHEL aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

Indicative timelines may include:

Stage Approximate Period
Initial editorial screening 3–7 working days
Reviewer selection 5–14 working days
First peer review 2–6 weeks
Author revision 1–4 weeks
Second review, where required 2–4 weeks
Final editorial decision 1–2 weeks
Production after acceptance 1–3 weeks

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements and submission volume.

25. COMMITMENT TO RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW

AJHEL's peer-review process is designed to ensure that published scholarship demonstrates:

Originality • Academic Rigour • Legal Accuracy • Research Integrity • Ethical Compliance • African Relevance • Policy Significance

The Journal is committed to a peer-review system that strengthens scholarship and contributes to better health governance, environmental protection, human rights and sustainable development across Africa.

Africa Journal of Health and Environmental Law (AJHEL)
Published by Prime Crest Publishers

Promoting Health, Protecting the Environment, Advancing Justice and Sustainability in Africa