Important: Peer review on ResearchBridge Africa is an academic quality-assurance and learning process. It does not by itself confer journal-publication status, institutional approval, a degree, or endorsement by an author’s university.
1. Purpose and scope
This policy governs how ResearchBridge Africa receives, screens, reviews, revises, decides upon and, where appropriate, publishes or hosts research. It protects authors and reviewers, improves research quality, supports student learning and preserves confidence in the scholarly record.
It applies to abstracts, proposals, working papers, student projects, dissertations, articles, protocols and related materials; pre-publication and post-publication review; everyone involved in review; and reviews conducted without charge or as a paid platform service.
Institutional assessment remains governed by the relevant institution. Where an institution’s requirements are stricter, those requirements prevail for that institutional purpose.
2. Publication categories and labels
Every item must carry one clear status label. ResearchBridge Africa will not use “peer reviewed” unless the documented process required by this policy has been completed.
3. Review model
The default is double-anonymous review: reviewers do not receive author identities and authors do not receive reviewer identities. The editor and authorised administrators may access identities for administration, conflict checks and investigations.
A single-anonymous, open, lecturer-supervised or post-publication model may be used only when disclosed before submission or expressly agreed. The review record must state the model used.
4. Roles and decision authority
Authors
Authors must submit original and accurate work, identify contributors, secure required ethics approval and consent, disclose funding, conflicts and material AI use, respond professionally, and remain responsible for the final work.
Peer reviewers
Reviewers advise on quality, rigour and presentation. They do not approve payment, guarantee publication, impose authorship, contact authors without permission or make the final editorial decision.
Editors and lecturers
The handling editor selects reviewers, manages conflicts, assesses reports, communicates decisions and determines whether review requirements have been met. Reviewers advise; editors decide. A lecturer may provide academic oversight but may not silently replace the recorded editorial decision.
Administrators
Administrators manage access, workflow, records, complaints and security. They may not alter a review or academic decision without a documented reason and audit entry.
5. Initial editorial screening
Before peer review, the platform may check scope and category; completeness and file safety; anonymity; authorship, ethics, consent, privacy, conflicts, funding and AI declarations; plagiarism or duplicate submission; and minimum methodological and referencing requirements.
A submission may be returned for correction, declined without external review or referred for integrity assessment. Screening tools assist human judgment and are not conclusive proof of misconduct.
6. Reviewer eligibility, conflicts and independence
A reviewer must have suitable subject or methodological competence, a verifiable identity, sufficient time and the ability to act impartially. Student or early-career reviewers may participate when appropriately competent and any supervision is approved and recorded.
A reviewer must decline or seek guidance over close personal, family, financial, supervisory or adversarial relationships; recent close collaboration or shared grants; direct competition; strong interests that may impair impartiality; or prior involvement that compromises the declared review model.
Author-suggested reviewers must be independently verified. Reviewer impersonation, fabricated identities and review manipulation are serious misconduct.
7. Invitations and timelines
- Accept or decline an invitation within 3 calendar days.
- Complete a standard review within 14 calendar days of acceptance.
- Request an extension promptly; one extension of up to 7 days may normally be granted.
- A non-responsive reviewer may be replaced. Any partial report remains confidential.
- A standard paper should normally receive two independent reviews. An abstract, topic or learning exercise may receive one clearly labelled developmental review.
8. Confidentiality and secure handling
Submissions, supplementary files, identities, reports, correspondence and unpublished findings are confidential unless the disclosed review model provides otherwise. Reviewers must not share, copy, publish or exploit submitted material; delegate without permission; or retain files beyond the authorised period. Confidentiality continues after rejection, withdrawal or completion.
AI confidentiality rule: A reviewer must not enter an unpublished submission, identifiable participant data or confidential review material into a public or unapproved AI system.
9. Responsible AI use
AI may be used only where the platform has approved the specific tool and data-handling arrangement. Permitted use must be limited, disclosed to the editor and checked by the reviewer. AI cannot replace independent reading, reasoning or responsibility. Automated scores or generated text must never be the sole basis for an editorial decision or allegation of misconduct.
10. Review criteria
11. Standards for reviewer reports
A report must be independent, evidence-based, specific, respectful and useful. It should summarise strengths, separate essential corrections from optional improvements, identify examples, distinguish methodological issues from stylistic preferences, state limits in the reviewer’s competence and give a recommendation supported by reasons.
Reports must avoid hostility, discrimination, personal attacks, unsupported accusations and coercive citation. Reviewers must not demand authorship, direct payment, private contact, unnecessary self-citation or unreasonable expansion of the study.
12. Recommendations and editorial decisions
Reviewers may recommend Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject, or Refer for ethics or integrity assessment. Recommendations are advisory. The handling editor records the final decision after considering the reports, category, policy and integrity concerns.
Where reports materially conflict, an additional review or specialist advice may be sought. The decision letter must give the outcome, consolidated reasons, required changes and revision deadline without disclosing protected identities.
13. Revision and re-review
- The author submits a revised file and point-by-point response.
- The standard revision period is 14 days for minor revision and 30 days for major revision.
- An editor may check minor revisions. Major revisions should ordinarily return to at least one original reviewer where available.
- A materially changed resubmission may be treated as a new submission.
- Failure to respond after notice may close the file without preventing a fresh submission later.
14. Ethics concerns and misconduct
Possible plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts, authorship abuse or review manipulation must be reported confidentially to the editor with available evidence. Reviewers must not investigate independently, contact an author’s institution or make public allegations.
The editor must separate academic review from any integrity inquiry, preserve evidence, restrict access, allow affected persons to respond and escalate under the applicable integrity policy. A concern is not a finding of misconduct.
15. Fees, earnings and academic independence
Payment purchases a defined review process or service level—not acceptance, a favourable recommendation or publication. Fees and reviewer earnings are governed by the approved price list, invoice, wallet and Finance Centre controls.
- Reviewers may not request or accept direct payments, gifts or benefits from authors.
- Compensation must not depend on an acceptance or rejection recommendation.
- Refunds, cancellations and payouts remain separate from academic decisions.
- Editors and reviewers must declare any financial interest in a service order.
16. Appeals, complaints and published-record action
An author may appeal within 14 calendar days by identifying a material procedural or factual error, unmanaged conflict or evidence that this policy was not followed. Academic disagreement alone is insufficient. An independent editor or academic adviser must consider the appeal.
Complaints about delay, conduct, confidentiality, discrimination, payment or administration should be acknowledged within 5 working days and normally resolved within 20 working days. Complex matters may take longer, with status updates provided.
Where a hosted record is unreliable or unlawful, the platform may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction or removal notice. Any action must be transparent, proportionate and linked to the original record where appropriate.
17. Performance, sanctions and records
The platform may monitor timeliness, completeness, quality, conflicts, confidentiality and professional conduct without rewarding particular recommendations. Proportionate action may include guidance, training, warning, suspension, removal from the reviewer pool, reversal of an improper wallet credit, access restriction or referral under another policy.
An auditable, role-restricted record of invitations, declarations, versions, reports, decisions, communications, appeals and administrative actions must be retained. Audit records may not be silently altered; corrections must preserve who changed what, when and why.
18. Inclusion, accessibility and withdrawal
Review must focus on scholarly merit and must not discriminate on nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender, disability, age, religion, political belief, institution, language background, economic status or career stage. Language proficiency must be distinguished from research quality.
Reasonable accessibility adjustments should be provided where practicable. Authors may request withdrawal before publication. The platform may first resolve an active integrity inquiry or contractual matter, but it must not present withdrawn work as published.
19. Minimum platform workflow
- Author selects a category and accepts the declarations.
- Platform completes editorial, privacy, integrity and completeness screening.
- Editor selects and verifies suitable independent reviewer(s).
- Reviewer accepts confidentiality, conflict and AI-use requirements.
- Reviewer completes the structured rubric.
- Editor records and communicates a reasoned decision.
- Author revises and responds where required.
- Editor verifies completion and assigns the accurate status label.
- Fees, earnings or refunds are processed independently through Finance Centre controls.
- The complete academic and administrative trail is preserved.
20. Required declarations
Author declaration
I confirm that the submission is my/our work; authorship and sources are accurately stated; required ethics approval and consent have been obtained; conflicts, funding and material AI use are disclosed; and the submission is not misrepresented as institutionally approved or formally published.
Reviewer declaration
I confirm that I have suitable competence and time; have disclosed relevant conflicts; will preserve confidentiality; will not use unapproved AI tools or delegate without permission; and will provide an independent, respectful and evidence-based review.
Editor declaration
I confirm that reviewer selection and the decision will be handled impartially; conflicts and integrity concerns will be managed; protected identities will remain confidential; and the final status label will accurately describe the process completed.
21. Governance and reference framework
ResearchBridge Africa owns this policy. Operational responsibility rests with the designated Editor-in-Chief or Academic Quality Lead, supported by the Super Admin for system controls. The policy will be reviewed at least annually and after a serious incident, major platform change or material legal or ethical development.
Material amendments will show an updated date and version summary. This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance for reviewers and reviewer policies, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidance on peer review, confidentiality, conflicts and AI use.
Before public launch, ResearchBridge Africa should obtain final review from its academic advisory team and a qualified Ghanaian legal and data-protection adviser.