Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The NJP Editorial Board comprises physicists and scientists who are recognised experts in their respective fields. The board is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific quality and integrity in all published work.
NJP operates a single-blind peer review process, meaning the identities of reviewers are kept confidential from authors throughout the evaluation.
Stage 1 — Similarity Check
Every submitted manuscript is first screened for textual similarity using Turnitin. The thresholds applied are:
- Above 35%: Rejected outright, without further review.
- Between 20% and 35%: Returned to the author with a requirement to reduce the similarity index before the manuscript can proceed.
- Below 20%: Proceeds to editorial screening.
Stage 2 — Editor-in-Chief Screening
The Editor-in-Chief assesses each manuscript to determine whether it falls within NJP's scope, meets minimum standards of scientific quality, and complies with the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these criteria may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to external review.
Stage 3 — External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Authors are required to supply a list of five suggested reviewers at submission; the editorial team may use these suggestions at its discretion.
Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor evaluates each manuscript and arrives at one of the following decisions:
- The manuscript is accepted for publication.
- The manuscript is rejected.
- The manuscript is returned to the author(s) for minor revisions.
- The manuscript requires major revisions and must be resubmitted for a further round of review.
Submission of Revised Manuscripts
When authors revise their manuscript in response to reviewer comments, they must submit a detailed point-by-point reply to each comment as an attachment alongside the revised manuscript. The revised version is ordinarily sent back to the original reviewers to determine whether the concerns have been adequately addressed. The manuscript may then be accepted or subjected to a further review cycle.
Grounds for Rejection
NJP may reject a manuscript if it:
- Falls outside the journal's scope
- Does not meet the required standards of novelty, relevance, or scientific rigour
- Has a similarity index exceeding 35%
- Contains methodological flaws that undermine the reliability of results
- Lacks sufficient originality following peer review
- Fails to meet NJP's broader scientific standards
Where applicable, the Editorial Board may recommend authors submit their manuscript to a more suitable journal.
Appeal Process
Authors may appeal a rejection decision within 30 days of receiving the decision notice by contacting the Editorial Office. The appeal must include:
- Any proposed text modifications or corrections
- A concise explanation (no more than one page) of why the manuscript merits reconsideration
- Point-by-point responses to the technical concerns raised during review
- A clear articulation of the paper's scientific merit and significance
For manuscripts rejected at the initial screening stage, an appeal must present substantial new information or arguments that were not available during the original assessment to justify reconsideration.
Expected Publication Timeline
The expected time from submission to publication is 1–2 months. Fast-tracking of the review or publication process is not available.
Contact and Support
For enquiries regarding the peer review process, contact the NJP Editorial Office:
Email: nigerianjournalofphysics@gmail.com
Phone: +2348036251745
Website: https://njp.nipngr.org/index.php/njp/about/contact
