Wisconsin Journal Editorial Policy

Introduction

Wisconsin International University College – Ghana regards it fundamental that research should be conducted and published according to ethical guidelines. Below are some editorial policies of the Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences (WJAS).

 

Open access policy and copyright

The journal complies with the Creative Commons license on publishing. Under this license, authors retain copyright, and unrestricted reuse of the content is allowed as long as proper attribution is given to the original author of the work. Further information regarding this can be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.

Copyright in articles published by Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences (WJAS) is retained by the author(s).

 

The Editorial Process

The Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences operates a rigorous and transparent peer-review process that aims to maximize quality. Peer-review is handled by researchers and scholars. It is believed that peer-review needs to be efficient, rigorous, and fair for everyone involved.

Peer-review is a blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and Special Issue topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.

 

Types of Manuscripts the Journal accepts for Publication

The Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences accepts a wide range of manuscript types. The word counts below are for the entire paper; they include the abstract, body, reference lists, and appendices.

 

Research Articles (6000 to 10,000 words; peer reviewed)

Research articles present important new research results, including the entire contents of a research project. Quantitative studies include statistical analysis of survey or secondary data. Qualitative studies include case studies, focus groups, interviews, and the like. Research articles generally consist of an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Authors of research articles are required to adhere to our policy of accessible scholarship.

 

Case Studies (up to 7,500 words; peer reviewed)

A case study is a report of a single case (generally deemed interesting or unusual). These studies usually are generated by the author’s actual experience or objective observations. This is a popular form of manuscript among practitioners. It is critical that the case study be objective and not promotional. The case should feature a new program approach, best practice, or organizational structure. It should present sufficient references to previous studies of the issue the case is focused on to embed (provide context) for this new case study to build on.

 

Reflective Essays (up to 8,000 words; peer reviewed)

A reflective essay is a critical reflection on one’s work or the work of one’s organization related to a specific issue or strategy. It is similar to a case study, but it is a more personal slant and subjectivity. This may have a more popular journalistic style, but also has much deeper substance than a trade journal article. It could take the form of a case study, project post-mortem analysis (why a project failed), policy commentary, position paper on a best practice, or even proposal for a new strategy, technique, or approach.

 

Review Articles (up to 8,000 words; peer reviewed)

Review articles do not cover original research but rather accumulate the results of many different articles on a particular topic into a coherent narrative about the state of the art in the emerging field food systems and agricultural development. Review articles provide information about the topic and also provide journal references to the original research.

 

Research Briefs (up to 4,500 words; peer reviewed)

A research brief is generally an update of ongoing research of national or international significance. It is typically a follow-up to a research paper already submitted, but may also be a paper providing preliminary findings of a new study. Research briefs may be fast-tracked for immediate publication because they are considered very timely.

 

Policy and Practice Briefs (up to 3,500 words; peer reviewed)

A policy and practice brief is a thorough analysis of a proposed, new, or existing government or organizational policy that focuses on the background of a policy issue, the details of the policy, and its real or predicted impacts on practice. Like research briefs, policy briefs may be fast-tracked for immediate publication because they are considered very timely.

 

Originality of article statement

All submitted articles must not be under consideration for publication anywhere else, nor have been published in any form prior to submission to the Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences. By submitting, authors are agreeing that the submission is original except for material in the public domain and such excerpts of other works that have written permission of the copyright owner. Where there is potential for duplication authors must correctly reference and cite the work.

 

Authorship and author consent policy

All listed authors must have made a significant contribution to the article and have approved all its claims.

Wisconsin Journal considers an author of an article to have:

  • made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • made final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

For suspected and incorrect authorship, Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences will refer to the description of authorship misconduct as outlined in the COPE guidelines.

 

Ethics approval

Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences is committed to ensuring the highest standards of integrity in all aspects of its publication activities and expects that all authors submitting manuscripts have secured all relevant ethics or institutional review board approval for their research. A statement declaring this must be included in the article, along with the name of the ethics or institutional review board granting approval.

 

Where ethics or institutional review board approval is waivered, a statement declaring this must be included in the article along with the name of the ethics or institutional review board granting waiver status. Authors also declare that by submitting to the Wisconsin journal this information will be made freely available to the Editor(s) upon request.

 

Research involving humans

Any work or research that involves collecting data from human participants must comply in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and authors must have received any and all relevant ethics or institutional review board approval. A statement declaring this must be included in the article, along with the name of the ethics or institutional review board granting approval.

Where ethics or institutional review board approval is waivered, a statement declaring this must be included in the article along with the name of the ethics or institutional review board granting waiver status. Authors also declare that by submitting to Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences, this information will be made freely available to the Editor(s) upon request.

If authors are unable to provide sufficient evidence to the Editor(s) upon request, the Editor(s) may reject the article and inform the author(s) institution and any other third parties where applicable.

 

Consent for publication

For all articles involving human subjects, including any images, videos, and any other personal and identifiable information, authors must have secured informed consent to participate in the study and to publication before submitting to the journal, and a statement declaring this must be included in the article.

Authors also declare that by submitting to Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences, this information will be made freely available to the Editor(s) upon request.

 

Competing and conflicts of interest

Broadly speaking, a conflict or competing interest can occur when personal interests, personal relationships or duties to others, compete with obligations and are likely to be compromised, or may appear to be compromised, by personal gain or gain to your immediate family (or people you have a close personal relationship with).

Authors must declare any and all conflicts of interest and competing interests that may relate to the submitted article, including all financial and non-financial competing interests. This must be stated in their article after the main text and acknowledgements under the heading ‘Competing interests’. Where there are no conflicts of interests or competing interests, authors must clearly declare this under the same heading. The Editor may decide to reject a submission after considering any and all conflicts of interest and the reviewer will be informed of this decision.

Reviewers must declare any and all conflicts of interests and competing interests when invited to review and when returning their review for the Editor’s consideration. Where there are no conflicts of interest or competing interests, reviewers must clearly declare this in the review form online, or by contacting the Editor. The Editor may decide to reject a review after considering any and all conflicts of interest and the reviewer will be informed of this decision.

Editors must declare any and all conflicts of interests and competing interests when assessing an article, and therefore not be involved with a submission when they:

  • have a recent publication or current submission with any author in the submission
  • share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author in the submission
  • collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author in the submission
  • have a close personal connection to any author in the submission
  • have a financial interest in the subject of the work of the submission
  • feel unable to be objective
  • are a named author of the submission

 

Peer review policy

The Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences operates an open and transparent peer review process. Articles submitted to the journal undergo blind peer review before being published officially in the journal after editorial acceptance.

Wisconsin Journal requires at least two external peer reviews of a submitted article to be made before an editorial decision for official publication in the journal can be made.

As far as possible, assigned editors and invited reviewers will not possess any potential conflicts of interests to the submitted article. However, where this is not possible, in circumstances where specific and required expertise or other reasons that are deemed necessary, any decision to publish may require an additional third review to maintain fair review practice.

The journal editor may also decide to reject a review after considering any and all conflicts of interest and the reviewer will be informed of this decision.

Refer to the guidelines for reviewers for further information.

 

Textual overlap and suspected plagiarism

All authors are responsible for the content written and published in their articles. In cases where unacceptable textual overlap and suspected plagiarism is found, the Editor will follow COPE’s guidelines on plagiarism. Editors also have access to use the Turnitin plagiarism detection software.

Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences define plagiarism as the presentation of another person’s thoughts or words or artefacts or software as their own. Any quotation from another person’s published or unpublished works must be clearly identified as such by correct citation and referencing.

Self-plagiarism is defined as the presentation of a person’s own thoughts or words or artefacts or software where it has been previously published as a new publication, without clear identification as such by correct citation and referencing.

The Editor shall make every effort to ensure that published content does not infringe any person’s rights, or applicable laws.

If you believe or have cause for concern that content in the Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences may infringe on copyright, textual overlap, and/or plagiarism, please contact the editor-in-chief who will review the complaint and take appropriate action.

To avoid such cases and for best practice, authors should be transparent and ensure proper and correct referencing and citation.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is an essential part of the publication process and it ensures that WJAS maintains the highest quality standards for all published papers. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts in the respective subject areas.

Immediately after submission, the journal’s editor-in-chief will perform a technical pre-check of the manuscript. A suitable academic editor will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review. In the case of continuing the peer review process, the Editorial Office will organize the peer review, which is performed by independent experts, and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask authors for sufficient revisions (with a second round of peer review, when necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by an academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue). Accepted manuscripts are then copy-edited and English-edited internally.

 

Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

The role of the reviewer is vital and bears a great responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. Every reviewer is expected to perform manuscript evaluation in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following the COPE guidelines.

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

  • Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
  • Should not come from the same institution as the authors;
  • Should not have published together with the authors in the last three years;
  • Hold at least a Graduate degree (Masters or a PhD)
  • Have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus, ORCID);
  • Are experienced scholars in the field of the submitted paper;
  • Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

WJAS strives for a rigorous peer review to ensure a thorough evaluation of each manuscript—this is a fundamental task for our reviewers. Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

  • Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript;
  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

 

Reviewers’ Benefits

Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task, despite being crucial. We are striving to recognize the efforts of all our reviewers.

Reviewing for the Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences brings the following benefits:

  • The reviewers receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
  • The reviewers are eligible to be considered for the “Outstanding Reviewer Awards”.
  • The reviewers are included in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers.
  • Excellent reviewers may be promoted to Editorial Board Members (subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief).

 

General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to the Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences are reviewed by at least two experts, who can be volunteer reviewers, or reviewers suggested by the subject area editorial board member during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the editor-in-chief on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

  • accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract);
  • suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined;
  • request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.

 

Potential Conflicts of Interest

We ask reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the editor-in-chief if they are unsure or something constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

  • Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors;
    • Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link, with any of the authors within the past three years;
    • Reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors;
    • Reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper;
    • Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

    Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors.

    Please kindly note that if reviewers are asked to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let the Editorial Office know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.

    Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Declaration of Confidentiality

The Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences operate a double-blind peer review. Until the article is published, reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the Abstract, confidential. Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a colleague to complete the review on their behalf (reviewers should always meet the criteria reported in the Conflict-of-interest section).

 

Review Reports

Some general instructions regarding the review report for consideration are outlined below.

To begin with, please consider the following guidelines:

  • Read the whole article as well as the supplementary material, if there is any, paying close attention to the figures, tables, data, and methods.
  • Your report should critically analyze the article as a whole but also specific sections and the key concepts presented in the article.
  • Please ensure your comments are detailed so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points you raise.
    • Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves, close colleagues, another author, or the journal when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. You can provide references as needed, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
    • Please maintain a neutral tone and focus on providing constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated.

    Note that the Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences follows several standards and guidelines, including those from COPE. Reviewers that are familiar with the guidelines should report any concerns they have about their implementation.

 

For further guidance on writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:

  1. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English) | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics.
  2. AJOL Recommended Peer-Reviewer Guidelines | African Journals Online.

 

Questions to guide the reviewer in assessment of the paper:

Please provide examples and evidence for responses, do not simply answer yes or no.

 

Topic and content:

  • Is the topic relevant for the journal?
  • Is the content important to the field?

Is the work original? (If not, please give references)

 

Title:

  • Does the title reflect the contents of the article?

 

Abstract:

  • To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?

 

Introduction / Background:

  • Is the study rationale adequately described?

 

Objectives:

  • Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?

 

Methodology:

  • To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
  • Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
  • Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
  • How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
  • How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?

 

Ethical Consideration:

  • If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?)

 

Analysis and results:

  • Are the methods adequately described?
  • Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
  • Do the results answer the research question?
  • Are the results credible?
  • Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
  • Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?

 

Discussion:

  • How well are the key findings stated?
  • To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
  • Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
  • Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
  • Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?

 

Conclusion(s):

  • Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?

 

References:

  • Are the references appropriate and relevant?
  • Are they up to date?
  • Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
  • Do the references follow the recommended style?
  • Are there any errors?

Writing:

  • Is the paper clearly written?
  • Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
  • Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?

 

– Rating the Manuscript

During the manuscript evaluation, please rate the following aspects:

  • Novelty:Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results provide an advancement of the current knowledge?
  • Scope: Does the work fit the journal scope*?
  • Significance:Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such?
  • Quality:Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?
  • Scientific Soundness:Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Is the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?
  • Interest to the Readers:Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (Please see the Aims and Scope of the journal.)
  • Overall Merit:Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?
  • English Level:Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

 

Manuscripts submitted to WJAS should meet the highest standards of publication ethics:

  • Manuscripts should only report results that have not been submitted or published before, even in part.
  • Manuscripts must be original and should not reuse text from another source without appropriate citation.
  • The studies reported should have been carried out in accordance with generally accepted ethical research standards.

If the reviewer becomes aware of any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the editor immediately.

 

– Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript as follows:

  • Accept in Present Form: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.
  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.
  • Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper may be rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

 

Note that your recommendation is visible only to the editor-in-chief, not to the authors. Decisions on revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well justified.