Overview
WAR Journal of Multidisciplinary Bulletin (WARJMB) is committed to rigorous, unbiased peer review and editorial decision-making. The journal follows recognized standards for publication ethics (including COPE and ICMJE principles) and expects authors, reviewers, and editors to adhere to those standards. (See the Ethics & Integrity Policy for detailed ethical requirements.)
Key points
- Peer review model: Double-blind peer review is the default; single-blind or editorial review may be used for invited content, editorials, or where double-blind is not practical.
- Editorial independence: The editorial team exercises full responsibility for content and decisions independent of the publisher.
- Transparency: Editorial procedures, reviewer roles, decision categories, and appeal routes are documented below.
- Licensing & preservation: Accepted articles are published under CC-BY-4.0, assigned DOIs via Zenedo, and preserved in the Internet Archive.
Peer review model & confidentiality
- Default model — Double-blind: Authors should submit manuscripts prepared for double-blind review (no author-identifying information in the manuscript file). Reviewers do not receive author identities, and authors do not receive reviewer identities.
- Exceptions: For some article types (editorials, commentaries, invited reviews) or where authors request, the Editor may use single-blind review or internal editorial review. Any deviation will be communicated to authors.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers, editors, and staff must treat manuscripts and related material as confidential and not share or use information for personal advantage.
Editorial workflow (summary)
- Initial triage (Editorial screening): The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor checks scope, originality, ethical compliance, and basic formatting. Manuscripts failing triage may be rejected without external review.
- Assignment to handling editor: A suitable associate or subject editor is assigned. The handling editor oversees reviewer selection and manages the review process.
- External peer review: For manuscripts sent for review, the handling editor seeks at least two independent expert reviewers (subject to availability). Reviewers submit structured reports and recommendations.
- Decision & revision: The handling editor reviews reports, makes a recommendation, and the Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject, or Reject & encourage resubmission.
- Post-acceptance: Production checks, DOI assignment (Zenedo), license confirmation (CC-BY-4.0), and preservation in the Internet Archive.
Reviewer selection & independence
- Selection criteria: Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, absence of conflicts, and, where possible, previous reviewing quality. Editors avoid reviewers from the same institution or recent collaborators of the authors.
- No payment: Reviewers serve voluntarily; no reviewer is paid for peer-review duties.
- Diversity & inclusion: Editors seek geographically and demographically diverse reviewers to reduce bias and improve coverage across disciplines.
- Reviewer suggestions: Authors may suggest potential reviewers on submission but the journal reserves the right to use or ignore suggestions and will not use only author-suggested reviewers.
Reviewer responsibilities & guidelines
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and confidentially, focusing on:
- Originality and novelty
- Methodological rigor and reproducibility
- Ethical compliance (human/animal research approvals, informed consent)
- Clarity, structure, and contribution to the field
- Appropriateness of references and acknowledgement of prior work
Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and decline reviews where they cannot be impartial. They should provide constructive, evidence-based comments and recommend one of the standard outcomes (Accept; Minor revision; Major revision; Reject). Detailed review templates and guidance are provided to reviewers by the journal.
Handling conflicts of interest
- For reviewers: Must declare any financial, personal, or professional conflicts. Conflicted reviewers will not be invited or will be excused.
- For editors: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists (e.g., same institution, co-authorship, close collaboration). In such cases the matter will be transferred to another editor.
- For authors: Authors must disclose funding sources and conflicts in the Declarations file. Undisclosed conflicts discovered post-publication may prompt correction or retraction.
Editorial decisions — categories & criteria
Decisions are based on reviewer reports, ethical checks, and editorial judgment. Standard decision categories:
- Accept: Suitable for publication with no or only minor copyediting changes.
- Minor revision: Requires limited changes; authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response.
- Major revision: Significant changes required; revised manuscripts typically undergo further review.
- Reject: Manuscript not suitable for publication for reasons including scope, methodology, novelty, or ethics.
- Reject & encourage resubmission: Author invited to substantially revise and submit as a new manuscript.
Editors make a final decision; reviewer recommendations inform but do not bind the editor.
Timeliness & communication
WARJMB seeks to maintain efficient processes and clear communication at every stage. Authors receive an acknowledgment on submission and are notified of decisions with reviewer comments and editorial instructions. (For practical guidance on preparing submissions see Author Instructions.)
Appeals & complaints
- Appeals: Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief with full justification and point-by-point responses to reviewer criticisms. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editor or an appeals committee.
- Complaints: Complaints about editorial handling, reviewer misconduct, or publication ethics should be sent to the editorial office (editorial@warpublisher.com). WARJMB will investigate and respond according to COPE best practice.
Allegations of misconduct, corrections & retractions
- Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification: Allegations will be investigated promptly. Confirmed serious misconduct results in rejection, retraction, and notification to the authors’ institutions where appropriate.
- Corrections / Errata: Minor factual errors that do not affect the conclusions will be corrected via an erratum or corrigendum.
- Expressions of Concern: Issued when investigations are ongoing and the integrity of published work is uncertain.
- Retractions: Issued when findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error, or where ethical breaches occurred. Retracted articles remain available but are clearly labeled as retracted. Retraction notices explain reasons.
- WARJMB follows COPE guidelines for all investigations and public notices. See the Retraction Notices section under About for examples and process.
Transparency & reporting
WARJMB requires authors to include data availability statements and disclose funding and conflicts. The journal supports transparent peer review practices and may publish peer review reports or reviewer names only with explicit consent. The journal reports statistics on acceptance rates and editorial processing on request to support indexing applications.
Editorial board — composition & responsibilities
- Composition: A geographically and disciplinarily diverse Editorial Board of subject experts supports the journal. Members’ names, affiliations, and roles appear on the About → Editorial Board page.
- Responsibilities: Editorial Board members advise on scope, solicit content, handle submissions as invited editors, and support strategic development. Board members are expected to uphold ethical standards and to disclose conflicts. The publisher maintains a record of board membership and updates it regularly.
Editor appointments & independence
Editors are appointed by WEST AFRICAN RESEARCH PUBLISHER LTD in consultation with the existing editorial leadership. Editors operate with editorial independence; commercial or non-editorial interference in decision-making is not permitted. Any potential influence or financial relationships are disclosed on the journal website if relevant.
Post-publication updates, indexing & preservation
- Accepted articles are assigned DOIs (Zenedo), published under CC-BY-4.0, and preserved in the Internet Archive.
- WARJMB actively pursues inclusion in indexing services (DOAJ, then Scopus/Web of Science as eligibility allows); transparent peer review and ethical publishing are central to meeting indexing criteria. For current indexing status see Indexing & Archiving.
Contact for editorial matters
For editorial enquiries, appeals, complaints, or questions about peer review:
Editorial Office
GP753 Ankpa Quarters, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria
Phone: +91 9101781106
Email: editorial@warpublisher.com · contact@warpublisher.com