Journals

NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF FORENSICS AND
FRAUD RESEARCH (NJFFR)

Integrity, Excellence, Service.

NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF FORENSICS AND FRAUD RESEARCH (NJFFR)

Editorial Policy

The NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF FORENSICS AND FRAUD RESEARCH (NJFFR) has adopted the following publication policies.

Peer Review

NJFFR follows the blind peer-review procedure for submissions of all manuscripts to its journals.  All submitted articles are subjected to an extensive peer review in consultation with members of the journal’s editorial board and independent external referees (usually three reviewers). All manuscripts/chapters are assessed rapidly and the decision based on all the peer reviewers’ comments, taken by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, is then conveyed to the author(s). Submissions from the Editor-in-Chief will undergo independent peer-review and will be submitted to another Editorial Adviser for decision on acceptance.

Copy editing and Proofs

Articles must be written in good English in a clear and correct style in order to maintain uniformity throughout the text. Articles submitted are copyedited before they are published.

Reprints

High-quality, prints/e-prints can be purchased for all published articles.

Copyright Letter

Articles must be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript, and should not be submitted by anyone on their behalf. The principal/corresponding author will be required to submit a Copyright Letter along with the manuscript, on behalf of all the co-authors (if any). The author(s) will confirm that the manuscript (or any part of it) has not been published previously or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Furthermore, any illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained.

Appeals and Complaints

Generally, the editorial decisions are not reverted. However, authors who think that their manuscript was rejected due to a misunderstanding or mistake may seek an explanation for the decision. Appeals must give sound reasoning and compelling evidence against the criticism raised in the rejection letter. A difference of opinion as to the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal will not be considered as an appeal. The Editorial Board will consider the appeal and the decision thereafter taken by the journal will be deemed final. Acceptance of the manuscript is not guaranteed even if the journal agrees to reconsider the manuscript, and the reconsideration process may involve previous or new reviewers or editors and substantive revision.

Authors who wish to make a complaint should refer them to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal concerned. Complaints to the Publisher may be emailed to info.njffr@cifcfen.org.

Conflict of Interest

Financial contributions and any potential conflict of interest must be clearly acknowledged under the heading ‘Conflict of Interest’. Authors must list the source(s) of funding for the study. This should be done for each author.

Plagiarism Prevention

NJFFR uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. iThenticate software checks content against a database of periodicals, the Internet, and a comprehensive article database. It generates a similarity report, highlighting the percentage of overlap between the uploaded article and the published material. Any instance of content overlap is further scrutinized for suspected plagiarism according to the publisher’s Editorial Policies. Bentham Science allows an overall similarity of 20% for a manuscript to be considered for publication. The similarity percentage is further checked keeping the following important points in view

Low Text Similarity

The text of every submitted manuscript is checked using the Content Tracking mode in iThenticate. The Content Tracking mode ensures that manuscripts with an overall low percentage similarity (but may have a higher similarity from a single source) are not overlooked. The acceptable limit for similarity of text from a single source is 5%. If the similarity level is above 5%, the manuscript is returned to the author for paraphrasing the text and citing the original source of the copied material.

It is important to mention that the text taken from different sources with an overall low similarity percentage will be considered as a plagiarized content if the majority of the article is a combination of copied material.

High Text Similarity

There may be some manuscripts with an overall low similarity percentage, but a higher percentage from a single source. A manuscript may have less than 20% overall similarity but there may be 15% similar text taken from a single article. The similarity index in such cases is higher than the approved limit for a single source. Authors are advised to thoroughly rephrase the similar text and properly cite the original source to avoid plagiarism and copyright violation.

Copyright and License

Open Access Plus in Subscription Journals

Accepted articles can be published online for free open access. Open access publishing provides maximum dissemination of the article to the largest audience. All authors will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to pay to have their paper made freely available on publication. If authors do not select the ‘Open Access Plus option, then their article will be published with standard subscription-based access.

Copyright (Subscription Journals)

Editors/Authors who contribute in a Bentham’s Journal will transfer copyright to their work to NJFFR. Submission of a manuscript to the respective journals implies that all editors/authors have read and agreed to the content of the copyright letter.

Unethical Behavior

Unethical behavior and misconduct may be pointed out by anyone to the Editor and Publisher with sufficient evidences. The Editor, in consultation with the Publisher, will initiate investigation against this Unethical misconduct, complete the procedure till an unbiased decision is reached, and maintain confidentiality throughout the process of the investigation. The Author should be given the opportunity to reply to all minor or major accusations.

In case of serious breaches, the employer may be informed where appropriate, by the Editor/Publisher, after reviewing all available information and evidences or after seeking help from experts in that field.

Errata or a Corrigenda and Corrections in Published Articles

Authors and readers are encouraged to notify the Editor-in-Chief if they find errors in published content, authors’ names and affiliations or if they have reasons for concern over the legitimacy of a publication. In such cases the journal will publish an ERRATUM or a CORRIGENDUM, in consultation with Editor-in-Chief and authors of the article, and/or replace or retract the article.

Article Withdrawal

Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication or published as E-pub Ahead of Schedule but which have not been formally published with volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are determined to violate the publishing ethics guidelines such as multiple submission, fake claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like, may be “Withdrawn” from the journal. Withdrawal means that the article files are removed and replaced with a PDF stating that the article has been withdrawn from the journal in accordance with NJFFR Editorial Policies.

Article Retraction

If any manuscripts are published, having certain assigned information of volume / issue / page number, and it is found that there are infringements of professional ethical codes in their content, such as plagiarism, excess similarity with some other article, fraudulent use of data, etc., then such manuscripts are retracted.

Concurrent Publication/Simultaneous Submission

It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the NJFFR have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered.

Disclaimer

Responsibility for the content published by the NJFFR in any of its journals, including any opinions expressed therein, rests exclusively with the author(s) of such content. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the NJFFR editorial board disclaims responsibility for any and all injury and/or damage (whether financial or otherwise) to persons or property, resulting directly or indirectly from any ideas, methods, instructions or products (including errors in the same) referred to in the content of any of NJJFFR. Any dispute arising, including any claim shall be governed exclusively by the laws of Nigeria.

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Manuscripts submitted for publication in NJFFR are subjected to single blind peer-review, except for a selected number of patent journals where double blind review is followed. Single blind reviewing maintains the identity of the reviewers, not disclosing their names to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.

Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.

1.    Reporting of Original Results:

The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier.

2.    Experiments and Analyses:

Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments should be documented in detail.

3.    Interpretation of Results:

Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript.

4.    Language of Composition:

The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article for publication.

IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER:

Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:

  • Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
  • Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
  • Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?

PRIVACY STATEMENT:

The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.

REVIEWING PROCESS FLOW CHART:

 

PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW

Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the NJFFR Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following procedures.

The editorial process and peer-review workflow for each journal are taken care of by a team of reviewers and Editorial Board Members (EBMs) who have expertise in their specific fields. NJFFR follows a blind peer review process. The services of reviewers are sought through invitations to organize and conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of reviewers. Manuscripts are forwarded for evaluation to EBMs initially and then subsequently to independent external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript:

  1. falls within the scope of the journal and
  2. meets the editorial criteria of NJFFR in terms of originality and quality.

 

EBMs may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting the peer review themselves, based on their own knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field. After review of the manuscript by at least two independent experts, in addition to the views of the Editor, the decision is relayed to the authors, which may be categorized as:

  • Requires minor changes
  • Requires major changes
  • Rejected but may be resubmitted
  • Rejected with no resubmission

 

Selection of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and EBMs of NJFFR have the right to select reviewers for a particular manuscript considering the knowledge and experience of the reviewers. Before sending the manuscripts to a reviewer, NJFFR seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to carry out a review. The correspondence between the editorial office of the journal and reviewers is kept strictly confidential. The author does not know who has conducted the review on his or her manuscript.

Purpose of a Review

A review report provides the Editor-in-Chief/EBMs with an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. It also supplies authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers to make them acceptable for publication in the NJFFR l. Although confidential comments of the reviewers are not relayed to authors, any remarks that may help improve the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration. A good review report answers the following important areas:

  • Is the work novel and of high standards?
  • What are the main findings of the paper? Is relevant work of other authors in the field appropriately acknowledged and references given to the previous literature?
  • Do the experimental data support the declarations? If not, what other evidence may prove fruitful?
  • What kind of readers would benefit from the manuscript and why?
  • In what further directions would it be feasible to take the current research?

 

Important Points to Consider

Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:

  • Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
  • Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
  • Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?

 

Privacy Statement

The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the EiC/EBMs and obtain permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.

Prompt Review

The reviewers are expected to provide their reports in a timely fashion since a prompt review leads to the timely publication of a manuscript which is beneficial not only for the authors but for the scientific community as well.

Changes in Review Reports

The Editorial staff relays the comments of the reviewers on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor. The review reports are edited by Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if the comments contain confidential information or these are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review form, which is intended to be read by the editors only.

Conflict of Interest

NJFFR respects requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for Editors to be aware of all competing interests; we therefore expect that reviewers would inform the Editor-in-Chief/EBMs if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of review of a manuscript. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editors or editorial office of the NJFFR if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out a review of a manuscript submitted by any author/contributor of the manuscript.

The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper within 15 days and it will then be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers normally allow one round of revision and, in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be allowed. If further revision is needed, then the manuscript is rejected and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh processing.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is that of the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the quality of the revision and his assessment of the quality of the manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the final assessment by the Editor-in-Chief.