Guidelines for Papers Review
All manuscripts must be reviewed by the Editorial Board to ensure accuracy and relevant submissions. Manuscripts that are likely to require undue editorial attention because of the neglect of these instructions will be returned while those found publishable will be treated accordingly and financial implication of publishing such material shall be spelt out. Well written papers will also be selected for publication. NB. (Both field based and desk top research papers are acceptable)
The reviewers of your paper will be looking for the following qualities:
The paper should be original and address a clear gap in research. It should also take into consideration the social, cultural, political, economic or/and religious issues of concern in the society. The level of originality will be determined by anti-plagiarism software. Similarity index of below 20 % is acceptable.
The paper needs to be well-structured with the following sections: title, authors & affiliation, an abstract (300 words) introduction, objectives and design, data analysis, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgment (where applicable) and a bibliography section. Where necessary, an appendix can be included.
The paper should be in sync with current challenges in the society. Some research problems that were relevant 10 years ago have been addressed. A good paper seeks to address challenges that are current or have been in existence for too long without solutions. How relevant is the research topic with reference to the conference theme? And how relevant are the findings of the research to the goals of the conference? Is there significant contribution to the body of knowledge?
How practical are the research recommendations. Is there any practical solution that the study has identified and which can be applied for the betterment of the society? Are the recommendations cost effective, culturally acceptable and adaptable? Is there evidence of home grown solutions?
6. Replicability / up-scaling
What are the possibilities of extending the research recommendations more widely? Can the recommendations be implemented successfully replicated in more than one region? (universal solutions).
7. Innovation / Novelty
What new contribution is the paper bringing forth? Does the paper propose a new approach to public health? E.g. new mobile app to address public health issues
8. Conference Presentation
The reviewers will check the quality of the presentation, presentation skills and how the presenter addresses any questions. For consideration for publications, reviewers will make the following recommendations:
- Reject as unsuitable.
- Accept with major revisions – the paper contains serious weaknesses, but the author is encouraged to revise and re-submit with the possibility for publication.
- Accept with minor revisions – the paper needs some revisions upon which it can be published.
- Publish as it is, without revision.
- The guiding philosophy is that the reviewer approaches the paper with the intention of assisting the author to get published. Their remarks will therefore be on the basis of a friendly critique.
- The process of peer reviewing the papers for a winning price or for publication or both is anonymous – neither the authors nor the peer reviewers are revealed to each other throughout the review process.
- Each paper will be scored by at least TWO reviewers independently.
- Subscribe to the International Journal of African Institute of Public Health Professionals