Contact AMREF    Training     AMREF Flying Doctors

MenuMaker

Reviewers

Reviewers and peer review policy of the African Health Agenda International Journal.

Scientific and medical literature shared through open access channels is growing exponentially. New journals are published each passing day, consequently competing for quality and relevance by attracting manuscript submissions, as well as attracting and sustaining a pool of experienced and valuable reviewers.

The Africa Health Agenda International Journal (AHAIJ) has a variegated resource of professionals from different health and medical-related arenas from all over the world, who provide critical peer review of manuscripts. The map below shows AHAIJ´s global footprint in terms of the number of professionals support AHAIJ by reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication.

We know what it takes to review a manuscript; journals target high profile professionals; they are usually very busy and have competing priorities.

Reviewers play an undeniable role in maintaining the quality of scientific publications by freely sharing their time, expertise, resourceful minds, and knowledge. AHAIJ therefore consistently seeks to partner with enthusiastic and experienced professionals to review manuscripts submitted to our journal and help authors turn them into winning publications.


Becoming a AHAIJ Reviewer

The AHAIJ is always looking for enthusiastic, experienced and dedicated professionals to review the multiple manuscripts received every year. Becoming a reviewer for AHAIJ is a simple process that calls for one to have a high level of scientific integrity and some experience in public health, epidemiology, research and applied sciences, associated with some training in literature review AHAIJ is therefore pleased to invite you to join our team of knowledgeable and resourceful reviewers by sending an email to editor@africahealthjournal.com.


AHAIJ review process

At AHAIJ, we review all the material we receive. The editors of AHAIJ performs an internal peer-review at the end of which, a manuscript can be rejected, accepted or submitted for external peer-review.

During the initial internal review, the editors focus on the overall look of the manuscript, adherence to journal standards, the quality of the written language. At this stage, we also focus on the topic addressed in the manuscript, its relevance to the journal audience, its originality, adherence to publication and research ethics. The overall methodology of the work is also reviewed at this stage to try to identify gross methodological shortfalls. Most of the manuscripts will not be send for external peer review at this stage to avoid spending valuable reviewers time. We may eventually request the authors to submit a revised version of their manuscript at this stage.

Download an overview of AHAIJ review process (Pdf).


Material for reviewers

To facilitate the assessment of manuscript by peer-reviewers, AHAIJ provides a peer-review form. The peer reviewers will provide their expert judgment on the quality (general aspects, objectives, methods, majors revisions, minor revisions, opinion on whether or not the manuscript should be published). A copy of the reviewer´s template is available here.

Other material exists that could be of help to peer-reviewers, we encourage them to look at them:

The AHAIJ is always looking for enthusiastic, experienced and dedicated professionals to review the multiple manuscripts we received every year. By filling this form, you will be automatically added to the AHAIJ Reviewer Database. Provide complete information, including a short bio sketch including your past and current experience, your work interest and your current affiliation; this information will help us identify the appropriate manuscript for you to review.


Volume

Volume 1 (Jan - Dec 2018)

Articles published in AHAIJ are Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.