Editorial Team

Editor in Chief

• Dr Yamikani NDASAUKA, Associate Professor
  Department of Philosophy, University of Malawi

Deputy Editor in chief

• Dr Mufunanji MAGALASI, Associate Professor
  Department of Fine and Performing Arts, University of Malawi

Theme/Associate Editors

• Dr Asante MTENJE, Associate Professor
  Department of English, University of Malawi
• Dr Simon MAKWINJA, Senior Lecturer
  Department of Philosophy, University of Malawi
• Dr Timwa LIPENGA
  Department of French, University of Malawi
• Dr Kondwani MSAKA
  Department of African Languages and Linguistics, University of Malawi

Advisory Board

• Professor Imani SANGA
  Department of Creative Arts, University of Dar es Salaam (imanisanga@yahoo.com)
• Dr Munamato CHEMHURU
  Associate Professor- Department of Philosophy, Great Zimbabwe University (munamatochemhuru@gmail.com)
• Professor Ernest van ECK
  Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria (ernest.vaneck@up.ac.za)
• Professor Osita OKGBUE
  Goldsmith College, University of London, (o.okagbue@cc.ac.mw)

Peer Review

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to JH undergo a thorough peer review process. The main purpose of the review process is to get expert views regarding, among others, the significance; originality; validity; and quality of the submitted manuscript. Because the peer review process adds value to the manuscripts and scholarship in general, JH strives to make the process as robust as possible.

JH’s editorial team acts as the first stage reviewers on all submitted manuscripts. This preliminary screening takes place within the first two weeks of submission. If the manuscript is considered to be of publishable quality, it is then sent to the reviewers.
JH follows the double-anonymous (double-blind) review model. In this model, the manuscript is sent to two anonymous reviewers, that is, the reviewers don’t know the identity of the authors, and vice-versa.

The major stages in the peer review process at JH are summarised in the following flow diagram. Each stage in the flow diagram involves the following processes:

1. The author submits the manuscript through email or an online submission system.
2. The editorial team assesses the submitted manuscript. At this stage, the manuscript may be rejected, accepted for peer review or publishing.
3. Anonymous peer reviewers read the manuscript and make recommendations.
4. The editor-in-chief assesses reviewers’ comments to arrive at the final decision. At this stage, the paper may be rejected or sent back to the author to address reviewers’ comments.
5. The author works on reviewers’ comments following the decision made at stage 4.
6. The author resubmits the revised manuscript.
7. JH accepts the manuscript for publication.
8. JH processes the manuscript (e.g., editing, typesetting).
9. JH publishes the manuscript.

The reviewers

Peer reviewers for JH come from the humanities scholarly community (see JH’s scope). The reviewers are selected from any of the following sources:

• JH’s editorial team
• JH’s already existing database of reviewers
• References from published literature or submitted manuscripts
• Artificial Intelligence tools (e.g., Web of Science tool, Taylor and F rancis reviewer locator tool)

The identified reviewers are then sent invitation letters. The letter includes such details as a brief introduction about JH, title of the manuscript, abstract, deadlines, among others. Based on this information, the prospective reviewer is expected to make the following considerations:

a) Whether they can assess the manuscript.
b) Whether there are any conflicts of interest connected to the ideas in the manuscript.
c) Whether they can meet the stated deadline and any other subsequent deadlines.

The prospective reviewer may give the following replies:

a) Accept to review the manuscript.
b) Decline the invitation citing such reasons as conflict of interest, not being the right expert in the subject area, being unavailable in the given deadlines.
a. The reviewer may instead suggest alternative reviewers if possible.

Reviewers’ tasks and guides

The reviewers read the manuscript in detail and give feedback on many aspects of the manuscript. The reviewers are expected to give detailed feedback in the following JH format:

1. Summary
a) What is the manuscript about?
b) What are the key findings and conclusions?
c) What is the manuscript’s scholarly contribution?
d) What are the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses?

2. Major observations
a) Important points that the author(s) must address for the manuscript to be accepted for publication.

3. Minor observations
a) Some relevant observations which may not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. These observations may improve the work if taken into consideration.
In more specific terms, the reviewers are guided by the following set of questions among others:
a) What is the topic? Is it relevant and interesting to JH’s audience?
b) Is the topic original in the relevant discipline? What new addition does it make to the subject area in relation to the already existing literature?
c) What is the paper’s main argument? Are the conclusions supported by the evidence? Are the research questions fully addressed?
d) Is the paper agreeing or disagreeing with the existing knowledge in the subject area? If agreeing what is the significance of the paper? If disagreeing, are there enough grounds? If there are no strong grounds for disagreeing, what would improve the case?
e) Is the argument crafted clearly? Are there no unstructured, illogical or invalid arguments?
f) If the paper includes illustrations, figures or tables, what value do they add to the paper? Do they enhance the readability and understanding or are they superfluous?
g) Did the work follow best practices in data gathering, e.g. methodology, ethical standards, etc.?
h) Is the language in the paper of acceptable academic level? For example, is the text readable or does it require a professional language editor?

In addition to questions that examine the substantive aspects of the manuscript, some questions assess the technical impeccability of the submission. These may include the following:
a) Are the references in the paper complete and formatted according to JH’s guidelines?
b) Is the abstract a concise summary of the issues addressed in the manuscript?
c) Does the title reflect the content of the paper?
d) Are the keywords an accurate reflection of the content?
e) Is the paper well-structured? Does it include formal sections? Are the sections appropriately numbered and levels shown?
f) Is the paper’s word count within JH’s guidelines?

Post peer review

The editor-in-chief and the editorial team carefully consider the feedback from peer reviewers to make the final decision. Upon making the decision, the editor-in-chief sends the peer review feedback package to the author. This may include the following: the decision letter, the reviewers’ reports and sometimes the original text with reviewers’ in-text comments. The decision letter explains why the editorial board has reached the relevant decision. The author is expected to systematically respond to each raised point to show that the suggested changes have been considered.

Possible outcomes after the review process
The following represent the range of possible outcomes:
a) Accept without any changes: JH will publish the manuscript without any changes. This type of outcome is very unlikely considering the meticulous scrutiny that manuscripts undergo.
b) Accept with minor revisions: JH will publish the manuscript after the author has made some minor corrections.
c) Accept after major revisions: JH considers this as a conditional acceptance because the manuscript will be published only if the author has made the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
d) Reject the paper: JH will not publish the manuscript or accept resubmission even if major changes are made. This decision is common with submissions that are out of the scope of JH or those that are making outlandish claims.

Common reasons for rejection
The first kind of rejection is due to the manuscript’s failure to pass the preliminary test of technical impeccability. Such manuscripts are rejected by the JH’s handling editorial office where routine checks about technical requirements are done. The paper may fail the test of technical impeccability on the following grounds:
a) The manuscript is under review at another journal (submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is forbidden).
b) There is evidence that the manuscript contains plagiarized content.
c) The submission is incomplete; for example, there is missing information such as authors’ names, title, keywords, affiliation of authors, references, substantive content, tables or figures, etc. Other reasons could be that the manuscript or parts of the submission are in unacceptable formats e.g. in some proprietary software unknown to JH.
d) The language is below the minimum threshold such that the paper cannot undergo peer review.
e) The manuscript does not conform to JH’s Author Guidelines (see Author Guidelines).

The second type of rejection is a result of the thorough review process. The reasons for this type of rejection are usually based on the substantive matters of the manuscript.

Ethical standards

Since JH follows the double-anonymous review model, all invited reviewers are expected to keep all details about the review process confidential. If there are any questions, the reviewer must consult the editor-in-chief for clarification or advice.

Author Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Humanities (JH) must be original contributions and not under consideration for any other publication at the same time. The corresponding Author must submit the manuscript online-only through our Manuscript Submission System. Authors are kindly invited to suggest potential reviewers (names, affiliations and email addresses) for their manuscript, if they wish. Authors should ensure that work is written in correct British English before submission. Professional copyediting can help improve the manuscripts and increase its chances of being considered for publication by JH. In case you feel that your manuscript would benefit from a professional a professional English language copyediting checking language grammar and style, you can find a reliable revision service at:

Title Page

Title Page is required for all submissions and must contain the following information

1. fore name and surname of each author, separated by commas;
2. affiliation(s) of each author (in English);
3. email address for the corresponding author.

Manuscript

Manuscripts must contain the following in that order

1. title (lowercase), without acronyms;
2. an abstract between 200 and 300 words in length
3. at least five key words from the manuscript.
4. Introduction
5. Main text
6. Conclusion
7. Acknowledgments
8. Declaration of conflict of interest
9. References
10. Tables and Figures

Manuscript must be submitted in an electronic file (Microsoft Word) and should use Times New Roman (12 pt.) and 2.0 line spacing. Manuscripts must have block paragraphs which must be justified on the right and left. Manuscripts must indicate paragraph breaks by leaving a line open. The Main text of the manuscript should be reasonably divided into sections and, if necessary, sub-sections, clearly indicating the hierarchy of subheadings. Cited sections should be marked by quotation marks and emphasized expressions should be marked in italics. The document of the main manuscript must be anonymised. Authors must check that all references cited in the text are included in, and correspond with, those in the works cited or references section.

Tables and Figures

If tables and figures are used, they should be presented each on a separate page at the end of the manuscript after the references. They must be numbered in the order they are cited in the text of the manuscript; each must be cited in the main text. If figures are used, they must be submitted as .tiff or .jpg files, with the following digital resolution:

1. colour (saved as CMYK): minimum 300 dpi;
2. black and white/grayscale: minimum 600 dpi;
3. one column width (8.5 cm) or 2 column widths (17.5 cm).

Authors must obtain written permission for the reproduction and adaptation of material which has already been published. A copy of the written permission has to be provided before publication (otherwise the paper cannot be published) and appropriately cited in the figure caption. The procedure for requesting the permission is the responsibility of the Authors; JH will not refund any costs incurred in obtaining permission.

Manuscript Length

Original articles (Full reports of results from original research. They provide an overview of innovative research in a particular field with or related to the focus and scope of the journal) should be between 5000 and 8000 words including references.

Book reviews (provide a short but comprehensive analysis of a recently published book) should be between 2000 and 3000 words.

Letters to the editor (short essays that express the authors’ viewpoint, may respond to published manuscripts in our journals, or deliver information or news regarding an issue related to the Journal scope. If the letter relates to a published manuscript, the authors of the original manuscript will be given the opportunity to provide a response.) should be between 1000 and 1500 words.

Standpoints/Opinions (offer short pieces or personal perspectives (not research) on knowledge, practices, technological concepts and/or developments that highlight recent, exciting research or policy developments related to any aspect of humanities.) should be between 1500 and 2000 words.

Abbreviation

If abbreviations are used in the text, authors are required to write full name and abbreviation in brackets [e.g. Multiple Myeloma (MM)] the first time they are used, then only abbreviations can be written.

Ethical considerations

JH requires Ethical Considerations section in main text. An Ethical Considerations sub-section is REQUIRED in the Methods section for all studies involving human or animal subjects. Authors must include the following:

1. name of Institutional Review Board or ethics committee or institution that reviewed the study,
2. manner (oral, written) in which consent was obtained from participants, and
3. methods used to protect data and confidentiality of participants.

Quotations

Short quotations should be indicated by double inverted commas, with single inverted commas for quotations within the main quote. Quotations of not more than 3 lines should be enclosed in double inverted commas (double quotes). A quotation within a quotation must be marked with single quotation marks. A quotation of more than 3 lines must be indented and blocked on both sides. Its font size must be 11 pt.

References

Avoid footnotes. However, if the author gives information which should not be part of the main text, she may explain in a footnote. When referring to published material, please use the latest version of American Psychological Association (APA) Style Manual (7^th Ed). References are cited in the text by giving the name of the authors(s), the year of publication (in parenthesis), and the page number(s) as follows:

1. In the text of a research paper, if the author’s name is part of the narrative, include only the year of publication in the parentheses. Example: According to Sango (2013), teaching art in a poor country is a challenging task because of lack of materials.
2. If the author is citing a particular page or chapter of a document, include that information in the parentheses. For example: Teaching art in a poor country is a challenging task because of lack of materials (Sango, 2013, p. 199).
3. In general, a scholar is expected to look for and use the original source of the information. When such work becomes difficult to find, a secondary source may be cited as follows: Seidenberg and McClelland’s study (as cited in Coltheart, Curtis, Atkins, & Haller, 1993)
4. At the end of the paper, in a section called “References,” full citations are listed in alphabetical order. For example:
   1. Books by a single author: Kimmel, M. S. (2007). The gendered society. Oxford University Press
   2. Books by two or more authors: DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumour psychology: Social and organizational approaches. American Psychological Association.
   3. Books by a Corporate (Group) Author: American Sociological Association. (1975). Approaches to the study of social structure. Free Press.
   4. Edited Book: Rhodewalt, F. (Ed.). (2008). Personality and social behaviour. Psychology Press
   5. Book/Document with No Author: The universal declaration of human rights. (1974). U.S. Catholic Conference, Division of Latin America.
   6. eBooks: Gillam, T. (2018). Creativity, wellbeing and mental health practice. Wiley Blackwell.
   7. From a website: Sanger, M. (2000). Woman and the new race. Bartleby.com. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/ (Original work published 1920).
   8. Chapters in Books: Levi-Strauss, C. (1971). Totem and caste. In F. E. Katz (Ed.), Contemporary sociological theory (pp. 82-89). Random House.
   9. Article, entry, or chapter from an online reference book (encyclopedia, dictionary, handbook): Watkins, M. (2013). Mind-body problem. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the mind.
   10. Journal Article: Klimonske, R., & Palmer, S. (1993). The ADA and the hiring process in organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 45(2), 10-36.
   11. Newspaper Article – Online: Cieply, M. (2013, November 11). Gun violence in American movies is rising, study finds. New York Times.
   12. Newspaper Article – Print: Jones, S. (1997, October 19). Hit-and-run suspect commits suicide. New York Times, p. 17.
   13. Dissertations or Theses: Rockey, R. (2008). An observational study of pre-service teachers’ classroom management strategies [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania].

All citations must be fully listed in a works cited or references section at the end of the article or review in alphabetical order by author, with complete bibliographic details.

Manuscripts should be submitted to: editor.jh@unima.ac.mw

Copyright Notice

© 2023 The Authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License