Editorial Policies

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS
ARTICLE RETRACTION
CORRECTIONS
MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION AND PEER REVIEW
PREPRINTS, DIGITAL ARCHIVING AND PRESERVATION

 

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

  1. Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe the process or decision was unjust, did not follow journal guidelines, or involved an error in judgment. Appeals will be handled transparently and in a manner that ensures fair reassessment.

Appeal Process:

To initiate an appeal, authors should submit a detailed letter explaining the grounds for the appeal. The letter should focus on the specific reasons the decision is deemed unfair and provide any supporting evidence relevant to the appeal.

An intention to appeal should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Upon receiving the appeal, the Editor-in-Chief will review all relevant documentation, which may include consulting the Associate Editor(s) involved, the Reviewers, and/or assigning an independent Reviewer/s to evaluate the submission. 

The outcome of the appeal, along with a summary of the decision-making process, ensuring that all appeals are considered impartially and transparently, will be communicated to the author. The aim is for ABC to reply in full to all appeals within 60 days. This decision will be final.

 

  1. Complaints

We welcome constructive complaints concerning the journal’s policies, procedures, or the conduct of its editorial team. Our aim is to maintain high standards of professionalism and transparency in addressing such matters.

Complaint Process:

Complaints should be submitted in writing and directed to either the Managing Editor or the Editor-in-Chief via their official email addresses. Please include all relevant facts and documentation to facilitate a thorough review.

Complaints made through alternative channels or directed to individuals outside of editorial management will not be formally recognised or acted upon.

Upon receipt, all formal complaints will be acknowledged within 5 business days. The complaint will be reviewed and investigated by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor, with oversight by the Journal Advisory Board to ensure impartiality.

Regular updates will be provided to the complainant throughout the investigation process, ensuring transparency and timeliness. We will work to resolve all complaints fairly, addressing any necessary corrective actions as appropriate.

 

ARTICLE RETRACTION

Published articles form part of the permanent scholarly record and should remain accessible and intact wherever possible. However, under exceptional circumstances, articles may need to be retracted, corrected, or flagged to maintain the integrity of the academic record. Retractions are used to address serious issues that invalidate an article’s findings, while corrections are used for minor issues that do not undermine the study’s overall validity.

 

  1. Grounds for Retraction

An article may be retracted if:

Research Misconduct: Evidence of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism is identified.

Serious Errors: The article contains major errors (e.g., flawed data, miscalculations, or experimental issues) that invalidate its findings or conclusions.

Ethical Concerns: The research is found to have been conducted unethically (e.g., in violation of applicable guidelines for human or animal studies).

Duplicate or Redundant Publication: The article has been published in multiple journals without proper authorisation or acknowledgment.

Authorship Misrepresentation: Fraudulent authorship claims or other serious authorship disputes arise.

Compromised Peer Review: The peer-review process is found to have been manipulated or otherwise compromised.

 

  1. Retraction Process

Initiation: The need for a retraction is determined by the Editor-in-Chief following a thorough investigation. A retraction may be initiated by the journal, authors, or third parties with credible evidence.

Author Notification: Authors will be informed of the concerns and given an opportunity to respond before the retraction decision is finalised.

Decision-Making: The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with relevant editors, reviewers, or the Journal Advisory Board, will make the final decision based on objective evidence.

 

  1. Retraction Notice

To ensure transparency, a retraction notice will be issued and made prominently available. The retraction notice will:

  • include the title and authors of the article, the reason for the retraction, and the identity of the party initiating the retraction.
  • be linked to the original article (which remains accessible but clearly marked as retracted).
  • be displayed prominently on the article's landing page and included in downloaded PDFs and EPUBs (the option of using the CrossMark widget is being explored).

 

  1. Alternatives to Retraction

In cases where retraction is not warranted but issues need addressing:

  • Corrections: Minor errors that do not affect the article’s overall findings will be corrected, and a correction notice will be issued and linked to the article.
  • Expressions of Concern: If an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive, an expression of concern may be published to alert readers to potential issues.

 

  1. Removal of Articles

Article removal is rare and only occurs in cases of legal or ethical necessity, such as:

  • Violations of privacy or confidentiality.
  • Content that is defamatory or legally actionable.

If an article must be removed, its title and metadata will remain accessible with a notice explaining the reason for removal.

 

  1. Responsibilities and Record Integrity

Preservation of Record: Retractions aim to correct, not erase, the scholarly record. Retracted articles remain part of the permanent archive, clearly marked to indicate their retracted status.

Accountability: All decisions and actions taken will be documented to ensure transparency and accountability.

Notification to Stakeholders: Authors, readers, and indexing services (e.g., PubMed, CrossRef) will be notified of retractions or corrections to ensure updates are reflected across all platforms.

 

CORRECTIONS

Published articles are part of the permanent scholarly record and will not be altered or removed except under exceptional circumstances (see the Article Retraction Policy). Corrections ensure the accuracy and integrity of the published record by addressing significant errors without invalidating the original research findings.

 

  1. Types of Corrections

1.1. Major Corrections

A correction will be published when a significant error affects the understanding, interpretation, or accuracy of an article but does not invalidate the article’s overall findings or conclusions.

Publication of Major Corrections:

  • Errata and Corrigenda: Major corrections are published as Errata or Corrigenda, depending on the source of the error.
  • Editorial Discretion: Both Errata and Corrigenda are published at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief following a thorough review of the error.
  • Visibility: A correction notice will be:
  • Clearly linked to the original article online.
  • Indicated in the article title (e.g., "Title of Article (with corrigendum)").
  • Reflected on the article landing page and included in all downloadable formats (PDFs, EPUBs) via the CrossMark widget.

Definitions:

Errata: Corrections of errors introduced by the Journal during editing or production. Authors will have the opportunity to review and approve the Erratum notice before publication.

Corrigenda: Corrections of errors made by the authors. Authors are required to cooperate in preparing and approving the Corrigendum notice.

 

1.2 Minor Corrections

Minor corrections address typographical errors or other inaccuracies that do not affect the article’s scientific content, conclusions, or overall integrity.

Handling of Minor Corrections:

  • An updated version of the article will be published alongside the original version, ensuring transparency and preservation of the record.
  • CrossMark Status: As these changes are not deemed significant enough to alert readers, the CrossMark status will remain “Current.”

Examples of minor corrections include:

  • Typographical or formatting errors.
  • Incorrect or incomplete acknowledgments.
  • Non-critical errors in author affiliations or metadata.

 

  1. Process for Issuing Corrections

Error Identification: Authors, editors, or readers may report errors in published articles. The Editor-in-Chief will assess the reported error and determine whether a correction is required.

Author Notification: Authors will be informed of the error and, if applicable, consulted during the preparation of the correction notice.

Correction Approval: The correction notice will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where relevant, approved by the authors before publication.

Timeliness: Corrections will be issued promptly to minimize the impact of errors on the scientific record.

 

  1. Transparency and Accessibility

All corrections will be:

  • Clearly labeled as Errata or Corrigenda to distinguish them from retractions.
  • Freely accessible to ensure readers can easily identify and understand the nature of the correction.
  • Linked to the original article, which remains part of the published record.

 

  1. Preservation of Record Integrity

The original article will not be altered but may include annotations or links to the correction notice.

Corrections aim to maintain the scholarly record's integrity by addressing errors while ensuring the original publication remains accessible for context and historical reference.

 

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION AND PEER REVIEW

1. Initial Manuscript Evaluation
Upon submission, each manuscript will undergo an initial evaluation by the journal team and one of the Editor-in-Chiefs to ensure it meets the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality of the research and absence of prior publication
  • Appropriate research techniques and ethical considerations
  • Written in English and of sufficient quality for reviewers to focus on content
  • Data accessibility, ensuring clear and structured presentation (following tidy data principles, Wickham 2014, where applicable, i.e., the physical layout links with its meaning by using a specific structure: a column for each variable, a row for each observation, and a table for each type of observational unit)

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be returned to authors prior to peer review or rejected if not aligned with the journal’s scope.

2. Assignment to Associate Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation will be assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise. The Associate Editor will conduct a more detailed evaluation, which may result in:

  • Rejection of the manuscript
  • Requesting pre-review revisions from the author
  • Sending the manuscript for external peer review

3. Peer Review Process
The peer review process involves at least two, ideally three, external reviewers who will assess the manuscript and provide detailed comments and recommendations.

Review Model: The default model is single-blind review, where the authors' names are visible to the reviewers, but the reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Anonymity of Reviewers: Reviewers may choose whether or not to sign their reviews. If a reviewer opts not to sign, it is assumed they wish to remain anonymous.

Double-blind Review Requests: While double-blind reviewing is possible, it is often challenging in small research communities where the authors’ identities are easily deduced. However, if authors request double-blind review, we will do our best to accommodate them.


On receipt of reviews, the Associate Editor will provide feedback to the authors via the journal's system. Authors are then required to revise their manuscript based on the feedback provided. This process will repeat until a final decision is made, ensuring that all necessary revisions are addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers and editors.

 

PREPRINTS, DIGITAL ARCHIVING AND PRESERVATION

  1. Preprints

Authors are permitted to post their manuscripts on a recognised preprint server prior to submission to ABC. However, the following conditions apply:

  • Disclosure at Submission: Authors must disclose the preprint in their cover letter at the time of submission, providing the name of the preprint server and the DOI or link to the preprint version.
  • Updates to Preprints: If the manuscript is accepted and published in the Journal, authors should update the preprint with a link to the published article, ensuring proper attribution to the Journal.
  • Preprint Citation: Readers and researchers are advised to exercise caution when citing preprints, as they have not undergone peer review and may differ from the final published version.

 

  1. Self-Archiving

Authors are encouraged to share their work responsibly while respecting the Journal's policies:

Before Publication: 

  • Authors may deposit the submitted or accepted version of their manuscript on personal web pages or academic sharing platforms. 
  • These versions must include a statement that the manuscript has not been peer-reviewed and is subject to change.

After Publication: 

  • Once the article has been published, authors may deposit the published version (final PDF) in subject or institutional repositories. 
  • Any pre-publication versions (i.e., submitted or accepted manuscripts) must be replaced with the published version following publication.

 

  1. Archiving

All articles published in ABC are archived on SciELO SA and in Sabinet African Journals and digitally preserved through Portico. Physical copies of the journal issues are archived/deposited in various libraries and legal depositories.

 

  1. Copyright

All publications in ABC are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  It is recommended that preprints use the same license and are explicit as to the license.