Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Scope of the Journal

The East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal (E. Afri. Agric. For. J.) has remained as a very important outlet for publishing findings of original research and other scholarly works in African. The scope of the journal is quite broad allowing authors to submit a wide range of manuscripts. The Journal accepts the following materials from African countries written in English language for publication on a quarterly basis:

o Manuscripts in the area of agriculture, livestock, forestry and natural resource management.
o Manuscripts submitted for publication must be original reports of research not simultaneously submitted to or previously published in any other scientific or technical journal and must make a significant contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
o Short articles which do not qualify for publication as scientific papers but can make a significant contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge can be accepted for publication as Journal Briefs. Critical review and interpretation papers are also accepted for publication subject to the normal review process.
o Manuscripts resulting from Symposia/Conferences having appropriate subject matter are also considered for publication as a compilation in a single special issue of the Journal.

1 Manuscripts Submission, Handling and Processing

1.1 Manuscripts Submission

Manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal must be original reports of research not simultaneously submitted to or previously published in any other scientific or technical journal and must make a significant contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge. If portions of the paper have been submitted or published elsewhere, the authors are required to disclose that fact at the time of submission and to provide copies of relevant prior publications. Whether publication in non technical outlets constitutes prior publication is decided on a case-by-case basis. In general, publication in non technical media will be considered prior publication only if substantially all of the data and conclusion have been published.

Authors are required to send a printed copy and disk/CD-ROM with the manuscript file to the Editor-In-Chief, East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 57811, 00200 City Square, NAIROBI, Kenya. In addition to this, the authors can also submit the manuscript electronically vide the following Email: eaafj@kari.org. The printed copy and the MS word processing file submitted must match exactly in all parts of the manuscript. The cover page that includes the title, acknowledgements, contributing institutions, brief statement of financial support and by-line (such as names of all authors with their complete current addresses) should be separate from the manuscript. In case of electronic submission, the cover page should be send as a separate attachment.

1.2 Manuscript Handling

The Journal's basic policy is that at least two independent scientists must agree before a paper is accepted for publication or released back to the author (rejected). Release of a paper back to the author does not preclude its resubmission to the Journal after its weaknesses have been addressed. For example, a paper released because it needed another year of data may be resubmitted after those data have been gathered and the results incorporated into the paper. A manuscript may also be released before review, either because it does not conform to the acceptable Journal standards or because the subject matter is outside the scope of the journal.

Receipt of all manuscripts submitted to the Journal are promptly acknowledged by the Journal Secretariat. Normally, communication from Journal Secretariat is with the corresponding author only, who, unless otherwise stated, is normally the submitting author. The cover letter or title page should, therefore, give the corresponding author's current phone and fax numbers as well as the email address for use during review and production.

1.3 Manuscript Processing

Upon receipt, each paper is assigned a unique manuscript identification number. The manuscript number is in the form of eaafj/yy/xxx, where eaafj is the Journal's abbreviation, yy is the last two numbers of the year of manuscript submission, and xxx is the number of the manuscript. For example eaafj/07/24 refers to the 24th manuscript received in the 2007 by the Journal. This reference number is communicated to the corresponding author along with acknowledgment of receipt of the manuscript. The authors and reviewers are required to refer to the manuscript reference number in all subsequent communications.

1.4 Technical Manuscript Reviews

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific progress. Participating in the peer review process of a journal is, therefore, a privilege and a responsibility. A professional, objective, and thorough review process benefits the publishing researchers, improves the professionalism of the scientific community, and enhances the overall quality of published research. The manuscript reviewers form the professional team behind the reviewing activities of a Journal. Their professional profiles define the scope of the Journal. They form links with individuals within professional associations and organizations for the benefit of the journal are well published professionals in their areas of specialization. The Editor-in-Chief is the steward of the E. Afri. Agric. For. Journal and has a major responsibility of keeping the papers moving through the review process because authors' selection of a Journal to publish in is mostly based on how long it takes to get the paper reviewed and published. The Editor-in-Chief is also expected to ensure that the published information is as timely as possible because papers printed more than one year after submission may not represent the latest work in a given area. In most cases, delays in publishing papers are caused by failure to assigned papers for review immediately after they are received from the authors; failure to return reviews of papers within the specified period by reviewers; and failure to act on papers after reviews or revisions are completed.

In order to combat these delays the Journal Editor-in-Chief is expected to ensure that papers are assigned for review as soon as they are received, reminders are send out to reviewers when reviews are late, and recommendations are made as soon as possible after a sufficient number of reviews have been obtained or after receiving a revised paper. In meeting all these obligations, the Editor-in-Chief is assisted by the Associate Editors and Peer Reviewers.

1.3.1 Associate Editors

The associate editors for the Journal are appointed by the Editorial Advisory Board on recommendation by the Editor-in-Chief or other Board members. The composition of the associate editors reflects the Journal's main areas of focus and key stakeholders. Under the direction of the Editorial Advisory Board through the Editor-in-Chief, associate editors are responsible for evaluating in a timely manner the technical and intellectual content and suitability of manuscripts assigned to them with the assistance of qualified peer reviewers. As is indicated in these guidelines to the reviewers, each manuscript should be reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers one of which can be the associate editor if the article is in his/her area of expertise. Accepting an appointment to serve as an associate editor indicates a commitment to serve the scientific community with dedication, bearing in mind that he/she has benefited from this service in the past and is returning this service to the scientific community and advancing the profession. In this regard, the associate editors are expected to:

o Take responsibility for understanding the requirements of their appointment and executing those functions to the best of their ability.
o Identify qualified peer reviewers and assign manuscripts to them for review as soon as they are received from the Editor-in-Chief.
o Obtain at least two reviews for each manuscript send to them to enable them make appropriate recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief for final decision.
o Prepare a thorough recommendation indicating what changes need to be made based on the points made by the reviewers as well as his/her own suggestions
o Keep a checklist for selecting reviewers for possible citation for excellence in manuscript review by the Editorial Advisory Board. The checklist may include timeliness, use of constructive criticism, improvement on scientific quality, conducting a thorough review, improvement on grammar and spelling, etc.
o Assist the Editor-in-Chief in monitoring the status of manuscripts during review and revision; ensuring that the journal's standards for timeliness are met for each manuscript; maintaining the professional integrity of the review process; recommending acceptance or release of manuscripts; and defining the journal's aims, policies, and editorial coverage.
o Strive to maintain the integrity of the peer review process by ensure that the manuscript receives a thorough and quality review in accordance with the high scientific standards of the journal.
o Execute their roles within the specified schedule of the journal with the understanding that failure to do so would detract from the quality of the journal and retard the professional development of the authors affected by a delay.
o Review each manuscript with impartiality, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other similar bias.
o Evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their scientific merit, with the understanding that there may be many acceptable ways to prove a hypothesis.
o Respect the independence of authors and their creativity and understand that differences of opinion can be addressed in published comments within the journal as a forum for scientific debate.

1.3.2 Peer Reviewers

The peer reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts for technical and intellectual content in a fair, unbiased, rapid, and confidential manner. The reviewers evaluate manuscripts in terms of the appropriateness of the subject. In this connection, original research findings suitable for publication in the journal are interpreted as the outcome of scholarly inquiry, investigation, or experimentation having as an objective the development of new concepts; the revision, refinement, extension, or verification of existing concepts; the application of existing concepts to new situations; or the development of new or improved techniques. The reviewers also determine whether a manuscript meets the high standard of quality of the publication. Quality here is defined to include originality of subject or applications, appropriateness of methods, accuracy of mathematical equations and computations, validity of conclusions, organization of subject matter, clarity, and communicational competence. The reviewers are expected to understand that the reward of the review process is the circle of scientific communication shared by publishing and reviewing scientists.

Reviewers who agree to examine the work of a peer and comment upon its accuracy, its clarity, its importance, and its usefulness to the scientific world have a weighty responsibility. The reviewers are expected to perform the assigned review tasks with excellence, bearing in mind that he/she has benefited from this service in the past and is returning this service to the scientific community and advancing the profession. In this regard, the reviewers are expected to:

o Take responsibility for understanding the requirements of their appointment and executing those functions to the best of their ability.
o Treat the authors and their manuscripts with respect and provide an honest assessment of the value of the research reported in the manuscript.
o Decline, with reasons, an invitation to review a manuscript if he/she is not likely to complete the required review within the time frame specified by the journal.
o Return their reviews within the specified time frame. If it becomes impossible to complete the review on time, the reviewer should inform the assigning associate editor or the Editor-in-Chief and ask for guidance on whether to return the manuscripts un-reviewed or take the additional time needed to complete the review.
o Decline to review a manuscript assigned to them if they have a bias against either the researchers or the research; have a conflict of interest with the research or the sponsors of the research; or are not truly knowledgeable about the area of research covered by the manuscript.
o Maintain confidentially about the manuscripts they review and should not use the data from such manuscripts before they are published, or share the data with colleagues, or reproduce the manuscript for any purpose.
o Reframe from using the peer review process as a means to further their own research aims, specifically by requiring authors to respond to questions that are of interest to the them and for which the study was not designed to answer.
o Resist the temptation to use their reviews as an opportunity to suggest that their own published work be referenced.
o Strive to maintain the integrity of the peer review process by ensure that the manuscript receives a thorough and quality review in accordance with the high scientific standards of the journal.
o Execute their roles within the specified schedule of the journal with the understanding that failure to do so would detract from the quality of the journal and retard the professional development of the authors affected by a delay.
o Review each manuscript with impartiality, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other similar bias.
o Evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their scientific merit, with the understanding that there may be many acceptable ways to prove a hypothesis.
o Respect the independence of authors and their creativity and understand that differences of opinion can be addressed in published comments within the journal as a forum for scientific debate.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Review policy

1.2 Manuscript Handling

1.3 Manuscript Processing

Upon receipt, each paper is assigned a unique manuscript identification number. The manuscript number is in the form of eaafj/yy/xxx, where eaafj is the Journal's abbreviation, yy is the last two numbers of the year of manuscript submission, and xxx is the number of the manuscript. For example eaafj/07/24 refers to the 24^th manuscript received in the 2007 by the Journal. This reference number is communicated to the corresponding author along with acknowledgment of receipt of the manuscript. The authors and reviewers are required to refer to the manuscript reference number in all subsequent communications.

1.4 Technical Manuscript Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief is the steward of the E. Afr. agric. For. J. and has a major responsibility of keeping the papers moving through the review process because authors' selection of a Journal to publish in is mostly based on how long it takes to get the paper reviewed and published. The Editor-in-Chief is also expected to ensure that the published information is as timely as possible because papers printed more than one year after submission may not represent the latest work in a given area. In most cases, delays in publishing papers are caused by failure to assigned papers for review immediately after they are received from the authors; failure to return reviews of papers within the specified period by reviewers; and failure to act on papers after reviews or revisions are completed.

1.3.1 Associate Editors

Take responsibility for understanding the requirements of their appointment and executing those functions to the best of their ability.
Identify qualified peer reviewers and assign manuscripts to them for review as soon as they are received from the Editor-in-Chief.
Obtain at least two reviews for each manuscript send to them to enable them make appropriate recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief for final decision.
Prepare a thorough recommendation indicating what changes need to be made based on the points made by the reviewers as well as his/her own suggestions
Keep a checklist for selecting reviewers for possible citation for excellence in manuscript review by the Editorial Advisory Board. The checklist may include timeliness, use of constructive criticism, improvement on scientific quality, conducting a thorough review, improvement on grammar and spelling, etc.
Assist the Editor-in-Chief in monitoring the status of manuscripts during review and revision; ensuring that the journal's standards for timeliness are met for each manuscript; maintaining the professional integrity of the review process; recommending acceptance or release of manuscripts; and defining the journal's aims, policies, and editorial coverage.
Strive to maintain the integrity of the peer review process by ensure that the manuscript receives a thorough and quality review in accordance with the high scientific standards of the journal.
Execute their roles within the specified schedule of the journal with the
understanding that failure to do so would detract from the quality of the journal and retard the professional development of the authors affected by a delay.
Review each manuscript with impartiality, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other similar bias.
Evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their scientific merit, with the understanding that there may be many acceptable ways to prove a hypothesis.
Respect the independence of authors and their creativity and understand that differences of opinion can be addressed in published comments within the journal as a forum for scientific debate.

1.3.2 Peer Reviewers

Take responsibility for understanding the requirements of their appointment and executing those functions to the best of their ability.
Treat the authors and their manuscripts with respect and provide an honest assessment of the value of the research reported in the manuscript.
Decline, with reasons, an invitation to review a manuscript if he/she is not likely to complete the required review within the time frame specified by the journal.
Return their reviews within the specified time frame. If it becomes impossible to complete the review on time, the reviewer should inform the assigning associate editor or the Editor-in-Chief and ask for guidance on whether to return the manuscripts un-reviewed or take the additional time needed to complete the review.
Decline to review a manuscript assigned to them if they have a bias against either the researchers or the research; have a conflict of interest with the research or the sponsors of the research; or are not truly knowledgeable about the area of research covered by the manuscript.
Maintain confidentially about the manuscripts they review and should not use the data from such manuscripts before they are published, or share the data with colleagues, or reproduce the manuscript for any purpose.
Reframe from using the peer review process as a means to further their own research aims, specifically by requiring authors to respond to questions that are of interest to the them and for which the study was not designed to answer.
Resist the temptation to use their reviews as an opportunity to suggest that their own published work be referenced.
Strive to maintain the integrity of the peer review process by ensure that the manuscript receives a thorough and quality review in accordance with the high scientific standards of the journal.
Execute their roles within the specified schedule of the journal with the understanding that failure to do so would detract from the quality of the journal and retard the professional development of the authors affected by a delay.
Review each manuscript with impartiality, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other similar bias.
Evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their scientific merit, with the understanding that there may be many acceptable ways to prove a hypothesis.
Respect the independence of authors and their creativity and understand that differences of opinion can be addressed in published comments within the journal as a forum for scientific debate.

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Username
Password
Remember me