Peer Review Process

Nafenzi Press implements a structured and transparent peer review process using Open Monograph Press (OMP) as its editorial management system. This process is designed to ensure the scholarly quality, relevance, and integrity of every manuscript prior to publication.

1. Submission Intake

The process begins when an author submits a manuscript through the OMP system. At this stage, authors are required to complete all submission components, including manuscript metadata (title, abstract, keywords), the main manuscript file, and any required supporting documents.

Once the submission is successfully completed, the manuscript is automatically registered in the editorial system as a new submission and assigned to the editorial office for preliminary assessment before substantive evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Triage

At this stage, the assigned Editor (Press Editor, Series Editor, or Volume Editor) conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript. This review is administrative and conceptual in nature and does not yet constitute a full academic assessment.

The editor evaluates whether:

• The manuscript falls within the scope and focus of the press.
• The submission files and metadata are complete and suitable for processing.
• The manuscript complies with ethical standards and editorial guidelines.

Based on this assessment, the editor may decide to:

• Reject the manuscript without external review if it is clearly unsuitable.
• Return the manuscript to the author for preliminary revisions.
• Advance the manuscript to the peer review stage.

3. Peer Review Configuration

OMP allows the press to apply different peer review models depending on the type and purpose of the publication.

Internal Review (Optional)

In some cases, the editor may request an internal assessment conducted by members of the editorial board or in-house reviewers. This review provides an initial quality appraisal and helps determine whether the manuscript should proceed to external review. Internal review reports are generally not made public.

External Peer Review (Formal Evaluation)

For academic and scholarly publications, manuscripts are sent to external peer reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Editors ensure that reviewers:

• Possess appropriate academic or professional competence.
• Have no conflicts of interest.
• Are selected independently and objectively.

At this stage, the editor also sets clear deadlines for the completion of reviews.

4. Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

Editors send formal review invitations to selected reviewers through the OMP system. These invitations include information on the scope of the review, evaluation criteria, and deadlines.

Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. Upon acceptance, reviewers are granted access to the manuscript files and the review form to complete their assessment.

5. Review Completion

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their reports through OMP. These reports typically include:

• An editorial recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
• Detailed comments and suggestions addressed to the author.
• Confidential remarks for the editor, where necessary.

OMP automatically monitors review deadlines and may send reminder notifications if reviews are overdue.

6. Editorial Decision

Once all reviewer reports have been received, the editor carefully considers the feedback and issues an editorial decision. The decision is based on a holistic assessment of the reviewers’ evaluations and the editor’s own judgment.

The decision letter is communicated to the author, accompanied by consolidated reviewer comments and clear instructions for the next steps.

7. Revision and Re-review

If revisions are required, the author submits a revised manuscript through OMP in response to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the editor may:

• Send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers.
• Assign new reviewers.
• Make a final decision without additional external review.

OMP supports multiple rounds of revision and re-review until the manuscript meets the press’s quality standards.

8. Final Acceptance

When all peer review requirements have been fulfilled and the revisions are deemed satisfactory, the editor formally marks the manuscript as Accepted. Final metadata are confirmed, and the manuscript proceeds to copyediting and production.

9. Transparency and Review Options

OMP enables the press to configure:

• Anonymous review models (single-blind or double-blind).
• Combined internal and external review workflows.
• The number of review rounds in accordance with press policy.

All stages of the process are recorded within the system to ensure editorial accountability and transparency.

Roles in the Peer Review Workflow

Key Principles

The peer review process at Nafenzi Press is guided by the following principles:

• Evaluation by qualified experts.
• Independent and fair editorial oversight.
• A systematic, step-by-step process from review to final decision.