The International Journal of Professional Practice (IJPP) operates a double-blind peer-review process to promote objectivity and quality. The manuscripts being reviewed do not include the authors' names, contact information or even institutional affiliations. Also, the reports provided to the author after the review are anonymous and do not include any details about the reviewers. The peer-review process is as follow:

  1. First, the submitted manuscripts are checked to see if they conform to the IJPP guidelines on length, structure, and style. The manuscript similarity index is also checked using a plagiarism software. A similarity index of not more than 10% is accepted. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are out of the aims and scope of the journal.
  2. Manuscripts that pass the conditions specified in (1) above are forwarded for review.
  3. Each manuscript is reviewed by two subject expert reviewers who are provided with a standard guideline by the journal on the areas to evaluate to ensure consistency of the peer-review process.
  4. The reviewers establish whether the manuscript is original in thought, method and whether its contents are scientifically sound and coherent. The results are also checked for clarity and adequacy in supporting the conclusions. They also establish if the research contributes to knowledge and development of the field, implications on policies and practices, and exhaustively referenced relevant works and acknowledged the sources using the APA citation and referencing system. The evaluation procedures and process help the reviewers to advise whether to accept the manuscript for publication or not.
  5. Reviewers are given three weeks (21 days) to provide feedback concerning a manuscript. This is significant in ensuring a reduction of time between manuscript submission and publication.
  6. All reviewers are required to disclose any conflict of interest regarding reviewing a given manuscript. Examples of conflicts of interest include:
    1. The reviewer should not have prior knowledge of the submission.
    2. The reviewer should not have collaborated in the research project, culminating in the manuscript's development under consideration.
  7. In case the interests of a reviewer are conflicted, another reviewer is engaged.
  8. If the reviewer is unable to complete a given review, one is expected to indicate the same. In cases where a reviewer fails to provide feedback after the stipulated time (21 days), a new reviewer is selected and requested to fast track the process.
  9. Once the reviewers' comments are received, the editorial team go through them and advise the chief editor accordingly. The chief editor’s decision in that regard is regarded as final.
  10. The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the reviewers, and in case of any corrections, the author is asked to attend to them promptly.
  11. The author sends back the corrected manuscript and a manuscript correction matrix that details the specific actions taken.
  12. The editorial team usually counter-confirms whether the corrections have been addressed appropriately. Any manuscript that requires resubmission to reviewers is usually sent back after the authors have responded.
  13. Once the editorial board is satisfied that all the corrections have been addressed adequately, the manuscript is forwarded to the text editor for the final language, stylistic and technical editing.
  14. The IJPP technical team then takes up the edited manuscripts for formatting, sequencing and publishing.
  15. The final formatted paper is usually sent back to the corresponding author for copyediting which involve checking for consistency, accuracy, proofreading and confirmation before the actual article is published. The whole peer-review and publication process is expected to be completed within three months after submission.

Manuscript Rejection

A manuscript can be rejected based on two negative reviews. However, in some cases, the reviewer may request specific revisions and the manuscript re-submitted for review. This is done if there is a reasonable expectation that the author can do as guided by reviewers. A manuscript can also be rejected if it is out of the aims and scope of the journal.

Recommended reviewers

IJPP reviewers are experts in their subject fields and are expected to assess any manuscript forwarded to them objectively.

Becoming a reviewer for IJPP

If you are currently not a reviewer for IJPP but would like to be considered, kindly contact the editorial office at ijpp@kemu.ac.ke. Identified IJPP reviewers are usually appointed for two years (renewable). As a reviewer, some of the benefits you may gain include having an opportunity to review the latest works in your research area and contributing overall to the integrity of the scientific research.