Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The NJTEP Editorial Board comprises physicists, environmental scientists, and interdisciplinary researchers who are recognised experts in their fields. All board members are committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific quality, rigour, and integrity in every article published.

NJTEP employs a single-blind peer review process, in which the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors at any stage of the evaluation.

Stage 1 — Similarity Check

Every submitted manuscript is first screened for textual similarity using a recognised plagiarism detection tool. The thresholds applied are:

• Above 35%: Rejected outright — the manuscript will not proceed to any further review.
• Between 20% and 35%: Returned to the author(s) with a requirement to reduce the similarity index before the manuscript is eligible to continue.
• Below 20%: Proceeds to editorial screening.

Stage 2 — Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief examines each manuscript to determine whether it falls within the scope of NJTEP, whether it meets minimum standards of scientific quality and originality, and whether it complies with the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be declined at this stage without external review.

Stage 3 — Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate domain expertise. The corresponding author is notified once review assignments are made.

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor arrives at one of the following decisions:

• The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted.
• The manuscript is accepted subject to minor revisions — the author must address specific reviewer comments before final acceptance.
• The manuscript requires major revisions — a substantially revised version must be resubmitted for a further review cycle.
• The manuscript is rejected.

Submission of Revised Manuscripts

When responding to reviewer comments, authors must submit:

• A revised version of the manuscript with all changes clearly indicated (e.g., using track changes or highlighted text)
• A detailed, point-by-point response document addressing every comment raised by the reviewers

The revised manuscript is ordinarily returned to the original reviewers, who assess whether the revisions adequately address their concerns. The manuscript may then be accepted or subjected to another round of review.

Grounds for Rejection

NJTEP may reject a manuscript at any stage if it:

• Falls outside the journal's stated scope
• Does not meet required standards of novelty, relevance, or scientific rigour
• Has a similarity index exceeding 35%
• Contains methodological errors that compromise the reliability of the results
• Lacks sufficient originality following full peer review
• Has not been adequately revised in response to reviewer comments

In appropriate cases, the Editorial Board may recommend that the author(s) consider submitting the work to an alternative journal.

Appeal of Rejected Manuscripts

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection decision must do so within 30 days of receiving the decision by contacting the Editorial Office. The appeal should include:

• A clear, concise explanation (no more than one page) of the scientific grounds for reconsideration
• Point-by-point responses to any technical concerns raised during review
• Proposed text revisions or corrections, where applicable
• A compelling statement of the paper's contribution and significance

Contact and Support

For any enquiries regarding the peer review process, contact the NJTEP Editorial Office:
Email: njtepnip@gmail.com
Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Nestor M. D. Chagok — +2348147744559
Deputy Editor: Dr. Emmanuel Joseph — +2348036251745
Website: https://njtep.nipngr.org/index.php/njtep/about/contact