About the Journal

  1. Basic Description of the Journal (About the Journal)

American University of Nigeria International Journal of Arts & Humanities (AUNIJAH) provides a forum for researchers, practitioners, professionals and users of Arts and Humanities resources to study and to discuss technical arts-related, social, legal, and humanities issues in all aspects of the arts and the humanities discipline. Hence, AUNIJAH strives to be a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary journal that draws upon research from different fields such as Arts history, Media and Communication Arts, Information and Communications Systems, Computer Designs and Arts, Social and Political Behaviours, Social and Environmental Arts & Designs and the likes. The journal also encourages research that applies to social media used in businesses, organizations, education, and the medical field.

  1. Journal Area of Coverage.

Some of the areas that this journal hops to cover include, but are not limited to the under-listed:

1

Arts History

23

Creative Arts Communication

2

Arts Theory

24

Contemporary Arts

3

Arts & Media Studies

25

Digital Arts Designs

4

Modern Arts Designs

26

Innovations in 21st Century Arts

5

Smart Technology in Arts Discipline

27

Art Creation

6

Social Media and Arts Studies

28

Artificial Intelligence in the Arts

7

Media & Arts Design

29

Teaching 21st Century Arts

8

Arts Education

30

AI and Modem Education Pedagogies

9

Medial Arts Education

31

Challenges of Art Education

10

Cultural Arts

32

Arts and Cultural Studies

11

Creative Arts Studies

33

Religion and the Arts

12

Interpreting Arts in Human Relations

34

Language and Media Arts Relations

13

Arts, Culture and Human Development

35

Indigenous Arts and Cultures

14

Artificial Intelligence in Media Arts

36

AI & 21st Century Communications

15

Philosophy of Arts and Arts Philosophy

37

Language Arts & Communications

16

Philosophy, Logics & Human Development Issues

38

Critical thinking & Problem-Solving Skills

17

Modern Literature and Literary Studies

39

Challenges of Teaching & Research in the 21st Century Arts Disciplines

18

Persuasive Writing & Communication Skills

40

The Art of Teaching and Research in Higher Education

19

Prose, Poetry, and Drama

41

Contemporary Dance and Music

20

Graphic Arts & Designs

42

Visual Arts & Communications

21

Ethical Issues in Art Designs

43

Ethical Issues in the Social Media

22

Ethical Issues in the Social Media

44

Innovations in the Arts and Human Nature

 

  1. Schedule of Deadlines and Frequency of Publication of Journals

3a. Prompt Processing

            It’s very important that article manuscripts are being processed in a timely fashion. Within one (1) week the submitted article manuscript should undergo a desk review. If the article manuscript meets all of the journal specifications, it should be sent into the full double-anonymized peer review process.        Following the completion of the review evaluations, a preliminary decision should reach the author of the article manuscript in roughly 30 to 45 days after submission.

The following turnaround is recommended:

  1. Reviewers are given an average of 7 to 10 daysto write their reviews.
  2. Five days are given for the review of a revised manuscript.
  3. Once the manuscript has been formally accepted, it can be published in as little as 3 to 5 days, providing that the Article Processing Charge (APC) has been successfully processed and all submission guidelines met.

3b. Regarding the Volume and Publication Frequency of the Journal

                At the moment, all future Open-Access article publications of AUNIJAH will be published in a volume published quarterly (three times a Year).

            Since the journal is still at its take-off stage, efforts shall be made to ensure that the journal publishes at least 12 – 20 articles that meet the journal requirements and specifications every four months, as long as the APC of such successfully processed and peer-reviewed articles has been paid for accordingly.

3c. Standard Article Counts

                While initially sticking with the original arrangements of publishing each volume every quarterly for the next two years, AUNIJAH aims to move to a Continuous Volume Publication Frequency. This will mean that AUNIJAH will in the near future, strive to publish no less than the total number of articles published in the previous years, but should also aim at steadily working toward publishing a higher number each year. It is important to keep in mind that to maintain eligibility for inclusion into the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), there will need to be a formal minimum of 12 article manuscripts published in each volume year.

            It is recommended that in the immediate future of AUNIJAH, as she strives to attain the Continues Volume Frequency Per Year, for standard article manuscripts, when they are accepted, following the double-anonymized peer review process, they be assigned to the first "issue" of the volume year – example: Volume 1, Issue 1 – with all standard article manuscripts numbered sequentially across that volume and issue and published as part of that “issue” up through to the end of the volume year (calendar year). Only the volume number and year will be reflected on the webpage of the journal and in the database.

Please note that this formal numbering inside the system is to help manage and organize the accepted papers and will not be displayed on the website.

  1. Regarding the Subject of Open Access Matters

            Open Access Publication offers authors the opportunity to produce freely available publications around the world with no individual or institutional subscription requirement. Open Access publishing aids with the citation impact and discoverability of a journal and its published contents leading to greater recognition across the academic community and in major indexes. Greater content access increases the potential of stimulating the interest of other researchers in the field for future collaboration opportunities as well as potential research funding opportunities.

Journal articles that are converted to open access have seen a 70-80% increase in citations compared to articles behind a paywall.

4a. Types of Open Access Publications

At AUNIJAH, two different types of open-access journal publishing are available:

  1. Gold Open Access Publishing
  2. Platinum Open Access Publishing

4a.1. Gold Open Access Publishing is a publication model for journals that do not have outside funding to cover the Article Processing Charges (APC) for authors of accepted work. As such, authors are asked to pay a one-time (APC) only after the acceptance of their article manuscript. AUNIJAH will never request payment from an author before acceptance as we are not a pay-to-publish publisher. An author’s intention to pay the APC while an article manuscript is under consideration for a journal shall not have any impact on the final decisions made about the manuscript.

4a.2. Platinum Open Access Publishing is a publication model for journals that have received outside funding (from one or more sources) to cover the Article Processing Charges (APCs) for authors of accepted work. Authors with accepted content in Diamond/Platinum Open Access Journals are not expected to pay an APC and thus can publish their work as Open Access for free. AUNIJAH recommends that all editors attempt to find funding for their journals. This will allow for authors of accepted work to publish for free under open access.

  1. Regarding the Subject of Article Processing Charges (APCs)

 5a. What APCs Covers

In the traditional subscription-based model, the cost to the publisher to produce each article manuscript is covered by the revenue generated by journal subscriptions. Under Open Access, all the article manuscripts are published under a Creative Commons (CC BY) license; therefore, the authors or funding body will pay a one-time article processing charge (APC) to offset the costs of all of the activities associated with the publication of the article manuscript, such as:

  1. Digital tools used to support the manuscript management and review process
  2. The typesetting, formatting and layout of the article manuscript
  3. Online hosting
  4. The submission of the journal’s content to numerous abstracts, directories, and indexes
  5. Third-party software (e.g. plagiarism checks)
  6. Editorial support
    1. Manuscript tracking
    2. Communications
    3. Submission guideline checks
    4. Communications with authors and reviewers
  7. Promotional support and activities
    1. Metadata distribution
    2. Press releases
    3. Promotional communications
  1. Web Content
  2. Ads
  3. Fliers
  4. Brochures
  5. Postcards

          All published manuscripts will be freely accessible, and the authors can, therefore, post and disseminate them widely.

A service provision of AUNIJAH open access publishing (as part of the open access processing charges) is professional line-by-line English language copy editing and proofreading. Once authors pay the article processing charge, the AUNIJAH Journal Development Team will upload the author's article for copy editing by Turnitin, a professional editorial services provider. Once the copy editor completes their work, the development editor will send the copy-edited document to the authors for final say before publication. This process shall not take more than 2 weeks.

5b. When/How Payment is Collected

            Payment of the APC fee (directly to the publisher) by the author or a funding body is not required until AFTER the manuscript has gone through the full double-anonymized peer review process and the Editor(s) )-in-chief has decided to accept the manuscript.. Please note that there is NO correlation between the intention to pay the APC (Article Processing Charge) by the author and the results of the review process or the outcomes/editorial decision. Also please be advised that AUNIJAH cannot schedule the article for publication or publish the article until payment has been received. The APC can only be set and collected by AUNIJAH publishing team,

            Authors can either pay the article processing charge themselves, or have an outside funding source aid with the payment.

5c. Journals Shifting from Gold to Platinum

            It is recommended that the journal's Editor(s)-in-Chief attempt to procure a funding body organization willing to aid the journal with the publication of open open-access article. Should one or more outside sources be willing to fund the journal, authors will be able to publish in the journal as open access for free since the article processing charges will be covered by the outside funding body. A journal with outside funding from one or multiple sources will shift from Gold Open Access to Platinum Open Access.

5d. Authorship of Reviewers

            It is important to note that review board members that submit manuscripts to a journal that has undergone the full double-anonymized peer review process, will be held to the same APC standards that all other contributors are held to if their work is accepted for publication. Review board members will be eligible for the same APC discounts, waivers, and subsidies as all other manuscript contributors.

5e. Funding Body Information

            When an author chooses to publish under Open Access, they will have the option to pay for the APC personally or secure a funding source, either from their institution, organization, awarded grants, etc. The author should be sure to acknowledge any funding received in the "Acknowledgment" section in the document. This serves as an acknowledgment to the funding source for aiding with the publication and overall discoverability of the article in its Open Access state. If the author did not receive any funding, this should also be stated in this section as well.

This new mandatory aspect to an accepted article has been included in the submission guidelines for our journals. Editor(s)-in-Chief of AUNIJAH  are tasked to ensure that all accepted articles now have this necessary information included in these articles.

 

  1. Regarding the Reviewer's Responsibilities and Their Expectations.

             Individuals appointed as reviewers are performing an important and valuable job, assuring that a manuscript is being published with integrity and accuracy. Serving as a reviewer is a key step and a significant contributing factor in an individual’s academic career progression. This responsibility increases visibility, as well as an individual’s knowledge of current and novel research in the field. Reviewers are conducting a professional service for their colleagues to improve the quality of their work and the availability of advanced research in the field at large.

At AUNIJAH, reviewers are encouraged to act as ambassadors for AUNIJAH, sourcing potential authors and interests in their region.

        Upon receipt of a manuscript for review, reviewers are requested to carefully read and assess each article. Their evaluation should be supported with relevant citations and an honest assessment of the value of the work with the goal of helping the author(s) produce a more precise piece of work. Reviewers are requested to provide their overall assessment of the work, followed by a specific list of comments. While grammatical corrections are valuable, the review must stretch beyond the use of punctuation, spelling, and language usage. Reviewers are not expected to copy edit, proofread, or translate the article manuscript, as the author is expected to have their work professionally copy-edited before submission.

            An appropriate evaluation includes an analysis of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, suggestions on how to make it more complete, relevant, and readable, as well as specific questions for the authors to address. Ultimately, providing advice that leads to action. Vague statements with no point of action do not provide goals for the authors and will hinder any subsequent revisions.

Reviewers are requested to avoid making derogatory and unprofessional comments. If a reviewer does not find the article manuscript to be publishable, they should still provide extensive comments outlining why the manuscript is not acceptable, with constructive directions for future submissions.

A decision to “reject” the article, with no feedback to the author(s), does not help them advance their skills. Reviewers are also requested to provide specific page numbers and explicitly stated areas of the manuscript with their comments, as well as relevant citations to the authors to improve their work. Assessing the tables, figures, and diagrams and providing further recommendations is another important part of completing the review.

            This decision made by the reviewers shall not be edited by the leadership of the publication as it directly contrasts the ethical guidelines put in place by COPE regarding editing a review evaluation.

         Reviewers have the opportunity to provide direct comments to the author on their manuscript by downloading the article and uploading the marked-up version on the reviewer form before submitting their evaluation.

  1. Phases in the Submission System 

7a. Initial Assessment (Desk Review)

All new journal articles are submitted through the AUIJAH manuscript submission system and screened by the Editor(s) )-in-chief for suitability.

During this phase, the Editor(s)-in-chief are asked to assess the following:

  1. Suitability of the research to the journal.
  2. Country of origin of the authors (please see the United States Sanctions Section regarding authorship by those affiliated in Iran).
  3. Proper or legible formatting for the review process.
  4. Any additional criteria the editor would like to assess before the review phases.
  5. High-quality manuscripts within the scope of the journal are then assigned to reviewers to begin the double anonymized peer-review process. Authors of manuscripts that are rejected during the initial assessment (desk review stage will be promptly notified.

7b. AUNIJAH’s Full Peer Review Process

            In a double-anonymized peer review, both the reviewer's and the author's identities remain anonymous throughout the entire peer review process.

Step 1: Once an article is deemed suitable by the Editor(s)-chief to enter the double-anonymized peer review process, it will be anonymized and assigned to at least three (3) to five (5) Editorial Review Board (ERB) Members (and if needed Ad-Hoc Reviewers) via the AUNIJAH manuscript submission system. The assignment of reviewers is based on the reviewers' areas of expertise matching the substance of the article. However, as mentioned previously, AUNIJAH does request that reviewers kindly keep in mind that from time to time they are likely to be assigned manuscripts that do not 100% align with their current research interests, but as an appointed reviewer we expect and appreciate their willingness to evaluate the manuscript based on its adherence to the overall mission, scope, and coverage of the journal. The present workload of the reviewer is also considered (please refer to the previous “Reviewer Selection” section for full information) before the assignment.

Reviewers are given evaluation criteria and asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and confidential feedback to the Editor(s)-)-in-chief.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript with the under-listed criteria as a guide:

  1. Originality and significance of contribution. Is the article/manuscript in congruence with the mission and scope of the journal?
  2. Interest to research community and/or practitioners. How useful is the material to the field?
  3. International relevance.
  4. Coverage of existing literature. Does the literature review contain relevant information in support of the article manuscript?
  5. Adequacy of methodology, analysis, and comprehension. Does the article manuscript contain a detailed explanation of research methods
    and procedures?
  6. Clear, concise, and jargon-free writing. Does the article manuscript clearly state the issues being addressed?
  7. Organizational structure. Is the article manuscript clearly organized in a logical fashion? Are the author’s conclusions supported by the research?
  1. The specific questions provided to Editorial Review Board (ERB) Member Reviewers (and Ad-Hoc Reviewers) within the ERB Review Form include:
  1. Do you feel the article manuscript adequately adheres to the mission and scope of the journal?If no, how could this be improved?
  2. Do you feel that this topic is timely? If not, how could the topic become more relevant?
  3. Do you feel that the data presented and analyzed is adequate? If not, how could the data be better presented?
  4. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the quality of research design?If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
  5. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the legitimacy of the conclusions formed within the article manuscript?If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
  6. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the practical and managerial significance of the work?If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions
    for improvement.
  7. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the clarity of the information presented?If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
  8. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rank the references used?Specifically, whether they are sufficient, appropriate, and up-to-date? If less than 3, please offer constructive suggestions for improvement and please list a few reference sources that you recommend be utilized and cited.
  9. In your opinion, what are the overall weaknesses of the article manuscript?Please carefully list specific suggestions for improvement
    and/or enhancement.
  10. In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of the article manuscript?
  11. Please provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the manuscript.
  12. Your Editorial Decision (Accept, Accept After Specified Revisions, Reject)
  13. Overall Comments to the Editor(s)-in-Chief

Step 2: Once all Ad-Hoc Reviewer and Editorial Review Board (ERB) Member reviews have been received and evaluated, the Editor(s)-chief will send the manuscript with the reviews to an Associate Editor (AE) for their assessment. Once the Associate Editor’s (AE’s) evaluation is received, the Editor(s)-in-chief will determine whether the article requires revisions or should be accepted/rejected.

The specific questions provided to Associate Editors (AEs) within the AE Review Form include:

  1. In your opinion, what are the overall weaknesses of the article manuscript? Please carefully list at least three (3) specific weaknesses of this
    article manuscript.
  2. In your opinion, what are the overall strengths of this article manuscript? Please carefully list at least three (3) specific strengths of this
    article manuscript.
  3. Please provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the article manuscript.
  4. Your overall assessment of this article manuscript and the reviews obtained from the Editorial Review Board (ERB) Members of this journal.

Step 3: The Editor(s) in chief will make the reviews and comments available to the author(s) and the other reviewers so that they can improve their critiquing skills.

Step 4: If the manuscript is rejected, the process ends and the Editor(s)-chief may recommend another outlet for the work, if appropriate. If the manuscript requires substantial revisions, then the author(s) will be expected to follow the reviewers’ commentary as well as the formatting guidelines for the re-submission of the article manuscript. The author(s) should provide detailed revision notes along with the revised manuscript outlining how they responded to the
reviewers’ comments. If the manuscript is accepted without any revisions required, then the author(s) will be provided with the formatting guidelines for final submission.

Step 5: Once the revised manuscript is received (if applicable) it will be sent back to the Associate Editor (AE) for evaluation, and then the Associate Editor’s (AE’s) decision will be sent to the Editor(s)-in-Chief. This process may repeat itself several times before a final decision is reached. If the article manuscript is rejected, then the process ends and the Editor(s) )-in-chief may recommend another outlet if appropriate.

Note: The return of a manuscript to the author(s) for revision does not guarantee acceptance of the article manuscript for publication.

7c. Editorial Decision Time Limit

            The Editor(s)-chief are requested to complete their editorial decisions in the relevant stages in no more than two (2) weeks. Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal deserve to have their work move through the system and processes in a timely manner. This will ensure the journal is in good standing with contributors.

7d. Revision Time Limits

            When requesting manuscript revisions from the authors, the due dates should not exceed one (1) month from the time that the revision request was sent. Should the author not submit the revision on time, it is important that the Editor(s) )-in-chief reach out to them to ascertain if they plan on submitting a revision and/or if they are still interested in being considered for publication. Some authors may require an extension and it is at the Editor(s)-in-Chief discretion whether or not they want to give the author an extended deadline. Revisions should always be supplemented with revision notes that address any reviewer commentary.

  1. Editorial Board Roles and Responsibilities

 8a. The Role of the Editor-in-Chief

            The role of the Editor(s) )-in-chief of a journal entails being able to successfully carry out various essential responsibilities. The following is a general list of what is expected of an Editor-in-Chief:

8a.1. Manuscript Recruitment Duties

  1. Promoting the journal within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
  2. Sharing published content of the journal within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
  3. Accumulating quality research articles to sustain the publication frequency of the journal.
  4. Communicating with any co-editors, managing editors and review board members to encourage them to promote the journal in their professional networks, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences etc.

8a.2. Submitted Manuscript Duties

  1. Assessing the relevancy of submitted articles to ensure they fit the scope and topic coverage of the journal before assigning reviewers.
  2. Sending articles for double-anonymized peer review.
    1. Securing at least 2 comparable reviews on each paper. A review from the editor cannot replace a review in the double-anonymized peer review process.
  3. Coordinating the article revision process with contributing authors.
  4. Ensuring that authors submit materials with references and in-text citations that are correct and strictly adhere to APA format.
  5. Running plagiarism checks on research papers to ensure that the papers have not been plagiarized.
  6. Ensuring that authors do not self-plagiarize or self-cite in their own papers.
  7. Confirming that the articles being considered for publication have not been published elsewhere before submission.
  8. Ensuring that all contributing authors strictly follow AUNIJAH’s formatting and submission guidelines. Please note that all manuscripts submitted for consideration to our publications must be professionally copyedited. AUNIJAH highly recommends eContent Pro, a professional editorial services provider.
  9. Making final editorial decisions on article manuscripts.
  10. Ensuring each accepted article is in its final revised form before it is moved into our pre-production and production stages.

8a3. Review Board Management

  1. Recruiting qualified individuals to join the review board of the journal.
  2. Organizing and maintaining an editorial review board through the submission system.
  3. Maintaining contact with the review board to ensure timely and quality reviews are completed.
  4. Rating completed evaluations by reviewers.
  5. Monitoring the board continually to maintain ethicality and retain only active members.
  6. Meeting with the established review board on a monthly basis.

8a.4. Citation Impact/Indexing of the Journal

  1. Ensuring the journal adheres as closely as possible to the criteria put in place by the flagship indices.
  2. Ensuring accepted and published content is making a significant contribution to the academic community.
  3. Ensuring the data in accepted article manuscripts is represented accurately and clearly.
  4. Acquiring diverse content from all around the world.
  5. Recruiting diverse individuals to support the journal as reviewers and as the editorial leadership.
  6. Ensuring the peer review process is being completed with the highest quality and ethical practices.
  7. Ensuring that there is a level of selectivity with regard to the articles that are being considered for publication.
  8. Ensuring that all articles accepted into the journal adhere to the mission and scope of the journal.
  9. Encouraging contributing authors and reviewers to share their published work in their institutional repository and within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
  10. Promoting the journal and sharing published content of the journal within their professional network, on social media, on call for papers sites, at conferences, etc.
  11. Posting the table of contents of all published articles on various listservs.
  12. Keeping AUNIJAH abreast of any indices or international libraries that may be of interest to the betterment of the journal.
  13. Alerting AUNIJAH to Open Access directories that fit the scope of the journal.

8a.5. Sustainability of the Journal

  1. Staying in regular contact with the development editor with whom you have been assigned to collaborate.
  2. Seeking funding bodies and/or partnership opportunities to help offset the costs associated with the Article Processing Charge (APC).
  3. Ensuring that the topics, mission and objective of the journal are continuously updated to remain relevant to the research community.

For more information on journal editorial responsibility, please see this International Standard for Editors by COPE.

8b. Submission Status Updates

            All manuscript submission status updates, acceptance, and rejection decisions must be handled by the journal’s Editor(s) )-in-chief. Should an author come to the development editor with a request for a status update, they will forward the author on to the Editor(s)-chief to respond. It is important that the Editor(s) )-in-chief create a strong rapport with the authors. This will ensure that they will be interested in publishing with the journal again in the future. It is important that editors do not feel pressure from the authors to bypass or hurry any level of the peer review process. The Editor(s) )-in-chief should not be accepting any form of remuneration or bribes for pushing the work through the process.

            Regarding submissions that have not been completed, it is the responsibility of the Editor(s) )-in-chief to contact the authors and see if they are still interested in publishing within the journal. Letting them know the phases that they are still missing (e.g. documents, figures, etc.) allows for a more responsive author.

            Should there be any old submission listings from previous years, it is the responsibility of the Editor(s) )-in-chief to reach out to the authors to see if they are still interested in publishing within the journal. Should the Editor(s)-in-chief not receive a response from the authors in two (2) weeks, they may exercise their right as the Editor(s)-in-chief to remove the listing from the system.

8c. The Role of the Managing Editor

            The role of the Managing Editor is to provide a helping hand to the workload of the Editor(s)-in-chief. There should be no more than two (2) Managing Editors appointed to a journal. Often, the Editor(s)-chief may request the Managing Editor to perform the following functions:

  1. Expanding the reach of the journal
  2. Helping with increasing submissions and visibility of the full published articles
  3. Moving article manuscripts in the system
  4. Sending article manuscripts through initial assessment (desk review)
  5. Assigning reviewers to article manuscripts
  6. Sending article manuscripts out for revisions
  7. Helping to organize and maintain the review board
  8. Other duties as assigned by the Editor-in-Chief

*Note: Managing Editors should get a confirmation from the Editor(s)-chief before making important decisions on article manuscripts.

AUNIJAH recommends that all members of the journal team have their AUN profiles and their ORCiD iDs linked to ensure that all activities done within AUNIJAH (not strictly just for journals) are recorded for your academic and professional careers.

8d. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors and Co-Editors:

            Many AUNIJAH journal publications have more than one editor on them. We recommend that if the workload for a journal is too much for one person to handle that up to two (2) additional co-editors could be recruited to help. AUNIJAH has set a maximum of no more than two (2) editors on one journal publication at a time*.

            This will allow accurate and constant communication between the Editor(s)-chief and there will be less confusion should something happen in the system that the other editors don’t know about. For all cases where there is more than one Editor-in-Chief appointed to a journal, the editors will need to provide firm clarification as to how they plan to operate the journal with an equal balance of leadership and oversight to ensure that all ethical processes and editorial policies are being executed properly.

            *Special exceptions may however be made to have more than two (2) Editors-in-Chief lead a journal so long as it is fully clarified how the editors intend to lead the journal and meet all ethical requirements.

If there are disputes between the Editor(s) )-in-chief of a journal, AUNIJAH as the publisher, will not get involved. It is the responsibility of the Editor(s) )-in-chief to resolve all disagreements between each other in a professional manner.

8e. Managing Editors:

            Editor(s)-in-Chief are welcome to invite and appoint Managing Editors to support with the workload as well. There should be no more than two (2) Managing Editors appointed to a journal. Having too many managing editors on the journal could lead to disorganization and the potential to duplicate actions that have already been completed. Having fewer managing editors is also easier for the Editor(s) )-in-chief to manage on a daily basis.

8f. Contract Amendments for Editors:

            If a sole Editor-in-Chief decides to step down, the Development Editor should be immediately notified. It will then be at the discretion of AUNIJAH who will decide who to be appointed to take over the vacant Editor-in-Chief position.

            If an Editor-in-Chief decides to step down and they have co-editors, all the other editors will need to confirm that they are aware of the departure. A contract addendum will need to be signed outlining the removal of the editor from the contract agreement and confirming the current editorship.

            Should any adjustments to the leadership of the journal be required, a formal contract addendum will need to be issued out by the Intellectual Property & Contracts Department and all parties will need to sign the agreement.

8g. Duties of the Editorial Board Members

            International Ambassadors, International Advisory Board Members, and Associate Editors all assist the Editor(s)-in-Chief in some capacity with the overall promotion, networking, and governance of the journal.

8g.1. International Ambassadors:

  1. Aid in the promotion of the journal.
  2. Support with the ongoing recruitment of submissions.
  3. Identify different discoverability/visibility channels for the journal.
  4. Help to expand the overall network for the journal.

8g.2. International Advisory Board:

  1. Provide ongoing recommendations regarding the scope of the journal.
  2. Advise/support the editorial leadership team with some of the editorial decision-making for the journal as needed.
  3. Support the integrity and credibility of the journal.
  4. Help to expand the overall network of the journal.

Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board Members, and Ad-Hoc Reviewers, all perform peer review evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

 

  1. Types of Reviewers

9a. Associate Editor

            Associate Editors support the Editors-in-Chief with the governance of the journal, ensuring that decisions on the manuscripts are being made with the greatest level of integrity and care. These individuals are held to a higher standard not only in their evaluations of manuscripts but in their support for the journal as well. Associate Editors have access to all of the peer reviews on the manuscript they are given to evaluate, as well as all of the revised versions of the manuscript so that they can formulate a comprehensive assessment of the work and provide advisement to the Editor-in-Chief.

9b. Editorial Review Board Member

            Editorial Review Board Members are individuals who are full members of the review board. Their names are included on the journal website. These members are expected to complete 3-5 timely and quality reviews per year. Editors can evaluate the work of the Editorial Review Board Members to potentially promote them to be an Associate Editor for the journal. These individuals are part of the pool of reviewers for the first layer of the double-anonymized peer review process.

9c. Ad-Hoc Reviewers

            Ad-Hoc Reviewers are individuals who have shown interest in supporting the journal but need to serve in a "trial" period before becoming a full member of the review board. Upon the completion of 2-3 timely and quality reviews for the journal, the editors can then evaluate their work and potentially promote Ad-Hocs to Editorial Review Board status. Ad-Hoc reviews are part of the pool of reviewers for the first layer of the double-anonymized peer review process.