Double-blind pairwise evaluation
Like most scientific journals that aspire to high quality, Akofena, the scientific journal of Language, Literature & Communication, subscribes to the principle of double-blind peer review.
In order to avoid any risk of complacency and to relieve the task of the Editorial Board, the Akofena Editorial Secretariat is responsible for steering the evaluation of all articles. According to this principle, all articles submitted to the Akofena journal must go through this process. It consists of submitting the received version of a
The peer reviewers may or may not ask the authors to make changes prior to publication, and may or may not be part of the Scientific and Editorial Committee.
The notion of « double-blind » peer review means that the reviewers will read the paper without knowing the author and that the reviewers will not know the identity of the reviewers when they make the final version of the paper, at least not before the final publication.
Each article submitted to Akofena is first rapidly evaluated by the Editorial Board, which decides whether or not to retain it. If the article is retained, the Committee suggests to the Editorial Secretariat two names of reviewers, within or outside the Scientific and Reading Committee of the journal, depending on the speciality of the article. Ideally, these people are from a university other than that of the contributor of the article, but know the context of the article. The reviewers receive the Word version of the article to be reviewed, as well as the review form. They have two (02) weeks to write their evaluation. The Akofena Editorial Secretariat ensures that the deadlines are met and that the quality of the evaluation is maintained. It transfers these evaluations to the Editorial Board of the journal, which will summarise them. If the evaluations are contradictory, the text is sent to a third evaluator for an opinion.
When the process is complete, the Editorial Board’s synthesis of the evaluations and recommendations is sent by the Editorial Secretariat to the authors of the article. This evaluation report presents the strengths and weaknesses identified by the evaluators in order to help authors to bring their text up to date in terms of form and/or advancement of knowledge on the subject it deals with, but it also reminds them of some provisions (inclusive writing, translation of the abstract into an African language, application of APA standards) that must be respected in order to publish in Akofena.
Authors whose papers are recommended for publication with modifications have two weeks to produce a second version of their work. The Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision on the second draft of the article. It may still request changes, provided that it gives reasons for them. This justification forms part of the history of the article.
The Editorial Secretariat makes a full linguistic revision of the final version of the accepted article: mistakes, typos, typography, reference checks, metadata checks (multilingual abstract, keywords), anti-plagiarism software. If the corrected text still contains aspects to be improved (complicated turns of phrase, misunderstood passages, missing references, confusion, etc.), the Editorial Secretariat will write a revision report and send it to the author for further information. The author must quickly provide answers in the same file and return it to the Editorial Secretariat.
The revised version is sent to the authors for final validation before being published on the journal’s website.
Articles are submitted to a double blind review by members of the scientific and reading committees and/or experts specialising in the fields covered by the journal. They each fill in a detailed assessment form with, in conclusion, an opinion on the publication: either « publication authorised » (A), or « publication accepted subject to the required corrections being made » (B), or finally « publication not recommended » (C) (form published on the website). If both opinions are favourable to the publication (A), the Editorial Secretariat makes a summary and sends it to the author.
If both opinions have reservations (B), the records are anonymised and sent to the author through the same channel. After correction, the article is again submitted to the same experts (as far as possible). If the two opinions are unfavourable (C), the records are anonymised and sent to the author through the same channel.
If the two opinions are contradictory, a third opinion is requested from one of the members of the Scientific and Reading Committee; the majority opinion determines the procedure for communicating the results to the author.
The author must reserve the exclusive right to publish his or her article until the results of the review are received. In the event of an unfavourable review, the author is released from any contract with the journal unless he/she decides to improve the article and resubmit it for possible publication. Authors who plagiarize 20% or more of the content of their article will be notified of the plagiarized sources and banned from publication with a reasoned opinion. If less than 20% of the content is plagiarised, the author will be required to reformulate the targeted passages in order to have his or her article re-examined. The plagiarism referred to here does not involve quotations in inverted commas which are necessarily referenced. The author remains solely responsible for the content of his or her article even after publication in the journal. The author must ultimately approve the version of the article to be published. The contributor must validate, in the last instance, the version of the article to be published by signing the declaration of originality and transfer of reproduction rights.
Online June 09, 2021