Editorial Policy

African Journal of Health and Medical Sciences (AFJHMS) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of editorial integrity and scholarly publishing. The journal follows the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adheres to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) best practices.

1. Editorial Independence

The editorial team of AFJHMS operates independently, ensuring that editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit, relevance, and quality of the submitted manuscripts. The editorial board is free from any influence by publishers, sponsors, or other external entities.

2. Peer Review Process

The African Journal of Health and Medical Sciences (AFJHMS) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to all manuscripts identified as peer-reviewed content. Under this model, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

2.1 Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial office before being sent for external peer review. The initial screening includes verification of:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines;
  • Completeness of the submitted files and required declarations;
  • Adequacy of ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;
  • Originality and similarity screening;
  • Scientific quality and appropriateness of the study design; and
  • Removal of author-identifying information from the blinded manuscript.

A manuscript may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external review if it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scientific or ethical standards, or does not comply with the submission requirements.

2.2 Manuscript Anonymisation

Authors must submit a separate title page containing their names, affiliations, contact information, acknowledgements, funding information, and conflict-of-interest declarations. The main manuscript must not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgements, institutional identifiers, or other information that could reasonably disclose the authors’ identities.

The editorial office checks the manuscript and file metadata before assigning it to reviewers. Although the journal takes reasonable measures to protect anonymity, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when authors cite their previous work or when the subject matter makes their identity apparent.

2.3 Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor with appropriate subject expertise. The handling editor selects at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic, methodological, or clinical expertise.

Reviewers should:

  • Have appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript;
  • Be independent of the authors and their institutions;
  • Not have recent co-authorship, close collaboration, supervisory relationships, personal relationships, or financial interests involving the authors;
  • Not be directly involved in the research being evaluated; and
  • Be able to provide an objective and timely assessment.

Reviewer suggestions provided by authors may be considered, but the journal is not obliged to invite the suggested individuals. Authors may also identify reviewers whom they believe should be excluded and provide a reasonable justification. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the handling editor.

2.4 Conflict of Interest

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. This includes personal, professional, institutional, academic, competitive, or financial relationships that could influence their evaluation.

A reviewer with a significant conflict of interest will not be appointed. When a conflict becomes apparent after the review has started, the reviewer must immediately inform the handling editor and discontinue the review unless the editor determines that the conflict can be appropriately managed.

Editors must also declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling affected manuscripts.

2.5 Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and importance of the research question;
  • Scientific and methodological validity;
  • Adequacy of ethical approval and research conduct;
  • Accuracy and clarity of the results;
  • Appropriateness of the statistical analysis;
  • Interpretation of findings in relation to available evidence;
  • Relevance and completeness of references;
  • Clarity, organisation, and quality of presentation; and
  • Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines.

Reviewer comments should be constructive, specific, evidence-based, and respectful. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, and unsupported allegations are not acceptable.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable manuscript content to publicly accessible artificial intelligence systems or other external platforms without explicit permission from the journal.

2.6 Review Timelines

Invited reviewers are normally requested to accept or decline the invitation within seven days and submit their review within 21 days of accepting the invitation. These are target timelines and do not constitute a guarantee of a particular decision date.

Where additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office. The journal may invite replacement reviewers when an invited reviewer does not respond or cannot complete the review within a reasonable period.

The journal aims to communicate an initial editorial decision after receiving the required reviewer reports. Authors will be informed if an unusual delay occurs.

2.7 Editorial Decisions

After considering the reports of at least two independent reviewers, the handling editor may recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept without further changes;
  2. Accept subject to minor revision;
  3. Major revision and reconsideration;
  4. Reject with an invitation to submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission; or
  5. Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent editor based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, ethical acceptability, relevance to the journal, reviewer reports, and the authors’ responses.

Acceptance is not determined by a numerical vote. A manuscript is not automatically accepted merely because both reviewers recommend acceptance, and it is not automatically rejected solely because one reviewer recommends rejection.

2.8 Conflicting Reviewer Reports

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor will assess the reasoning and evidence provided in each report. The editor may:

  • Reach a decision based on the quality and relevance of the existing reports;
  • Request clarification from one or both reviewers;
  • Invite an additional independent reviewer; or
  • Refer the manuscript to another senior editor or the Editor-in-Chief for adjudication.

The journal will not disclose reviewers’ identities when seeking clarification or additional assessment.

2.9 Revision and Re-review

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript;
  • A detailed point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment; and
  • A clearly marked or tracked-changes version, where requested.

Authors should explain and justify any reviewer recommendation that has not been followed. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor. Major revisions will normally be returned to one or more of the original reviewers or, when necessary, to new independent reviewers.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. The journal may reject a revised manuscript when the authors have not adequately addressed the scientific, ethical, or editorial concerns.

The recommended revision period is normally 14 days for minor revisions and 30 days for major revisions. Extensions may be granted upon a reasonable request.

2.10 Editorial Board and Editor Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, editorial board members, reviewers, staff members, or individuals affiliated with the publisher are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.

Such manuscripts will be assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer information, or influence the editorial decision.

2.11 Special Issues and Supplementary Content

Articles submitted to special issues, thematic collections, conference supplements, or guest-edited issues undergo the same initial screening, double-blind external peer review, conflict-of-interest assessment, and editorial decision-making process as articles submitted to regular issues.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for special-issue content. Manuscripts submitted by guest editors will be handled by an independent editor and reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

2.12 Non-Peer-Reviewed Content

Editorials, corrigenda, retraction notices, obituaries, news items, and other content that does not undergo external peer review will be clearly identified as non-peer-reviewed or editorially reviewed content.

2.13 Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant error occurred during the peer-review or decision-making process. Appeals must provide a clear scientific or procedural justification and should not merely express disagreement with the decision.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final. Allegations involving reviewer misconduct, confidentiality breaches, discrimination, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics will be investigated according to the journal’s publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

2.14 Documentation and Transparency

The journal maintains confidential records of reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, conflicts of interest, and editorial decisions through its manuscript-management system.

Published articles should display the dates of manuscript receipt, revision, acceptance, and publication to improve transparency and traceability.

3. Ethical Considerations

AFJHMS is committed to ethical publishing practices. Authors must adhere to ethical guidelines, including obtaining necessary ethics approvals for research involving human or animal subjects. The journal employs plagiarism detection software to ensure the originality of submissions.

4. Confidentiality

The editorial team ensures the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts during the review process. Reviewers and editors must not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than those involved in the review process.

5. Conflict of Interest

All members of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict is identified, appropriate steps will be taken to manage or eliminate it, ensuring the integrity of the editorial process.

6. Corrections, Retractions, and Appeals

AFJHMS is committed to correcting errors in published articles. Authors are expected to cooperate in prompt correction or retraction of errors. The journal provides a process for authors to appeal editorial decisions or address ethical concerns.

7. Transparency and Accountability

The editorial board is committed to transparency in the editorial process and accountability for all decisions made. The journal publishes annual reports on its editorial activities, including acceptance rates, review times, and other relevant metrics.

8. Open Access Policy

AFJHMS is an open-access journal, meaning all articles are freely available online immediately upon publication. The journal does not charge any article processing charges (APCs), as costs are covered by Jamhuriya University of Science and Technology, Mogadishu, Somalia.