Peer Review Policy

Manuscripts that do not confine to the journal scope is meant with the Desk Rejection. And, any manuscripts that does not met the primary required criteria in authors guidelines   will be returned to authors without evaluation. Submitted manuscripts that adhere to the guidelines shall first be received by the Managing Editor, who will assign them to two – independent reviewers resident in countries different from the paper originator’s own. A Double blind peer review process shall apply. Based   on the comment and recommendations of the reviewers, the Editor prepares a decision letter either of acceptance without correction, or with minor

Editorial Processing

  1. All manuscripts undergo an initial review process involving DBJEB editors and may include members of the editorial board. This process can take 2-3 weeks, after which manuscripts are either rejected or sent into peer review for possible publication processing.
  2. The review period will take up to 30 days. However, the total peer review may take 8-10 weeks due to revision times. The decision to publish is ultimately predicated upon the outcome of peer review, the judgment of journals editors, and, if necessary, a satisfactory ending and/or revision process that meets DBJEB standards.
  3. Once the manuscripts are accepted by the editors, authors will be asked to submit copy-edited version manuscripts and complete copyright assignment form.

Authorship

Author contributions

For ease of accountability, we strongly advise authors to outline their individual contributions to the paper in the order of roles: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Supervision & review.

Changes to authorship

 Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide clear list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names, and personal details   should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted, it must be in writing stating the reason for such change, and mail to the Managing Editor and the approval is subject to the discretion of the journal Editor.

-Acknowledge

The author(s) must provide names of interested contributors, or person that made inputs in the article development directly and indirectly. Editor(s) and the publisher should be included in the acknowledgement page of the authors. This is to show a sense of appreciations for team effort, and in line with ethics of research.

-Funding

 You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

  • Declaration of Conflicting Interest

     All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, article ownership, honoraria, patent registrations, and grants or other funding. Authors should state in their manuscript to show declaration of competing interest.

    -Research data

    This journal encourages you to share data that supports your research publication in an appropriate data repository, and enables you to interlink the data with your published articles. If you are sharing data, you are encouraged to cite the data in your manuscript and reference list. To foster transparency, we require you to state the availability of your data in your submission if your data is unavailable to access or unsuitable to post. This may also be a requirement of your funding body or institution. You will have the opportunity to provide a data statement during the submission process

Open Access Policy Article Processing Charge Digital Archiving and Download Option

  1. Publishing Policies

Publication Ethics

 

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.

Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

 

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.  Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.  In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.

Alertness to Ethical Issues

A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper  and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation

 

Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests

Reviews should be conducted objectively.  Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others.  Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrected copy; retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author’s institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.

  1. Preparing your manuscript

     -formatting
    Abstract

     A concise and factual abstract is required. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, tittle, period of study, variables / or participants, results and recommendations. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.

    Keywords

     Provide a maximum of 5 keywords in American spelling and avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, ‘and’, ‘of’). Abbreviations is not allowed except for the ones specific for the field of study.

     

    Introduction: Provide an adequate background of the study especially your independent variables or constructs. Pose a valid and clearly written research question(s); discuss your dependent variable as it relates to problem statement.

    Literature: Present theoretical, and empirical supports to the topic under discussion. Theory/rigor: A selection of theory should be an extension of idea, via critiques rather than stating the theory as there are. Calculation can be used to lend credence on the practical development from a theoretical basis

     Material and methods. Provide academically sound methodology and analysis backed by sufficient validated details. Also, Methods that are already published should be summarized, and indicated by a reference. If quoting directly from a previously published method, use quotation marks and also cite the source.

     Results: Provide appropriate evidence based on empirical findings in a concise manner. Discussion: discuss the findings in line with the results, and back it up with related works of authors in the field.

    Conclusions:  Summarize the points resulted from the findings and present them in an intelligible fashion and in Standard English.

     Appendices: If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B,C  etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: Eq. (A.1), Eq. (A.2), (A.3),  etc.; . Similarly for tables and figures: Table A1; Fig. A.1, etc

     -Artwork, figure & other graphics

    Artwork Electronic artwork General points • Make sure you use uniform lettering and sizing of your original artwork. • Embed the used fonts if the application provides that option. • Aim to use the following fonts in your illustrations: Arial, Courier, Times New Roman, Symbol, or use fonts that look similar. • Number the illustrations according to their sequence in the text. • Use a logical naming convention for your artwork files. • Provide captions to illustrations separately. • Size the illustrations close to the desired dimensions of the published version. • Submit each illustration as a separate file. • Ensure that color images are accessible to all, including those with impaired color vision

     -Reference style

    All references should be formatted in APA 7 style in the in-text and listed in the References section. References should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically.

    When referencing using APA7, each reference will have a corresponding “in-text citation ‘’, and must be in the format: Enclosed In brackets, author’s surname and the year of publication. Then, the single authors list: Author Surname, Initial. (Year). Article title: Subtitle. Journal Title, Volume (issue), Page-Page. https://doi.org/10.xxxx. .  Newspaper referencing: Author Surname, Initial. (Year, Month Day). Article title. Newspaper title. https://www… Book references for two – authors: 1st Author Surname, Initial., & 2nd Author Surname, Initial. (Year). Title of book: Subtitle (X ed.). Publisher. Thesis references: Author Surname, Initial. (Year). Thesis title: Subtitle [Doctoral thesis, Name of University]. Name of Hosting Site. URL.