i) Area of Specialization

Reviewers must preview the title of the manuscript whether the subject of the manuscript is within their areas of expertise before acceptance to review. Reviewers are expected to reply immediately to editor/s after an overview with their decisions to “Accept” or to “Decline”. If declining to review, reviewer may suggest another potential reviewer with specialization in the subject area of the manuscript. This will help the editor to take alternative course of action.

ii) Conflict of Interest for Reviewers

Different forms of reviewers are differently known as anonymous, open, and single/double-blind, where reviewers are not revealed to the authors and authors are not revealed to reviewers. Whatsoever the case, reviewers are expected to adhere to the moral principles and if such case arises of any potential conflicts of interest they must inform to the editor before accepting the review process. Any such relation which seems to influence the fair and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript, reviewers are expected to inform to the editor/s as soon as possible to search for alternative solution for selecting reviewers. 

iii) Timeframe

Once the manuscript is accepted by the reviewers, they are expected to submit it within the time frame as indicated since the time of acceptance. If there is any unavoidable circumstance faced by the reviewers, they are requested to inform to the editor/s immediately to take alternative course of action either by extending the deadline (if it is possible to extend) or to allocate to other reviewer.

iv) Confidentiality of Reviewers

Reviewers are the backbone in the process of journal publication because of their assigned roles and the level of confidentiality. Broadly, reviewers are expected to follow the following confidentiality beside others. 

  1. Confidentiality of Content of Manuscript: Reviewers must not disclose about the manuscript of which they are reviewers to anyone at any point of time either before or after the review process.
  2. Intactness of the Manuscript: Reviewers must not distort the originality of the manuscript because it is a document which the author/s has/have submitted to the Editorial Office with a trust that it must not be distorted, misused, manipulated and must be kept like a privileged document. Even if there is any suggestion from reviewers’ side, it must be transparent and must be through Editorial Office. It is the Editorial Office which is responsible to reveal the comments/suggestions to the authors until and unless it is requested to do so.  
  3. Abstaining From Misuse: It is immoral to use the manuscript in any form by the reviewers before publication. It is a document of sanctity.

v) Clear and Constructive Comments

Comments forwarded by the reviewers must be clear and understandable to the editor/s and authors. Ambiguous and ill-informed comments must be avoided. Objective and constructive comments must follow the reasons and logical arguments either for criticism of the manuscript or praise of the manuscript. Reviewers should clearly identify the positive and negative sides of the manuscript in a sound and balanced way to avoid any sorts of biasness, hostile aptitude or derogatory personal comments. The very purpose of the review process is to improve the quality of the manuscript. If there is any scientific reflection found in the manuscript, reviewers should encourage the authors with multiple rounds of revisions instead of straight forward rejection until there is a major flaws found in the manuscript which are of unscientific nature and rejection is good for the cause of academics itself.   

vi) Non-Discriminatory Nature of Reviewers

Reviewers are first academicians and intellectuals with scientific aptitude; therefore, it is highly expected from reviewers to pass the comments/suggestions of non-discriminatory nature and must avoid the personal biasness based on caste, color, race, creed, ethnicity, religion, region, sex, citizenship or any other consideration of authors that harms the originality, quality and merit of the manuscript.

vii) Following the Guideline of Authors

Each journal follows its own style and format of manuscript preparation. Accordingly, each journal has its own guideline for authors. While evaluating the Manuscripts of PanAfrican Journal of Governance and Development (PJGD), reviewers are requested to go through the detail guidelines for authors (http://journals.ju.edu.et/index.php/panjogov/guideauth) developed for each type of manuscript.

viii) Reconsideration of Previously Evaluated Manuscripts
Once the reviewers have passed the comments to be incorporated by authors and the same manuscript is submitted by the authors after incorporating the comments, it is the moral responsibility to consider the same manuscript to cross-check whether all comments are incorporated properly or not and to give final decision accordingly.