All manuscripts submitted to the African Continuous Improvement Journal (ACIJ) undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure that published articles meet high standards of academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, relevance and scholarly contribution. The peer review process is designed to support the publication of credible research that contributes meaningfully to entrepreneurship, enterprise development, continuous improvement, innovation, quality management, organisational performance and related fields.ACIJ follows a double-blind peer review model. This means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors. This approach is intended to promote fairness, objectivity and impartial evaluation of manuscripts.

Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is complete and complies with the journal’s author guidelines before submission.At this stage, authors must ensure that the manuscript includes all required sections, such as the title, abstract, keywords, main text, references, tables, figures, ethical declarations, conflict of interest statement, funding declaration and any other required information.

Once submitted, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening by the Chief Editor, Managing Editor, or assigned editorial team member. This screening determines whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.During editorial screening, the journal assesses whether the manuscript:
• Falls within the focus and scope of ACIJ
• Meets the journal’s formatting and submission requirements
• Demonstrates originality and scholarly relevance
• Has a clear research problem, aim and contribution• Provides an appropriate theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or practical foundation
• Complies with ethical research standards
• Meets basic academic writing and referencing expectations

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review. This may occur where the manuscript is outside the journal’s scope, lacks academic quality, shows serious ethical concerns, contains excessive similarity, or does not meet minimum submission standards.

Assignment of ReviewersManuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, research experience, methodological expertise and familiarity with the manuscript’s topic.ACIJ seeks to appoint reviewers who can provide fair, constructive and academically sound feedback. Reviewers are expected to declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. If a reviewer has a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationship that may affect their impartiality, they must decline the review invitation.Double-Blind ReviewThe journal protects the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the review process. Authors are expected to remove identifying information from the manuscript where required, including names, institutional details, acknowledgements and self-identifying references.Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality and must not share, discuss, copy, or use the manuscript for personal or professional benefit. Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to key academic and editorial criteria. These may include:

• Relevance to the focus and scope of ACIJ
• Originality and contribution to knowledge
• Clarity of the research problem, aim, objectives, or research questions
• Strength and relevance of the literature review
• Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework
• Suitability and rigour of the methodology
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation
• Clarity and significance of the findings
• Strength of the discussion and conclusion
• Practical, policy, or theoretical contribution
• Ethical compliance and responsible research conduct
• Quality of writing, structure, referencing and presentation

Reviewer Recommendations

After assessing the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:
• Accept without revisions
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit with major revisions
• Reject, with reasons provided

The reviewer recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Chief Editor or assigned editor, who considers the reviewer reports, the quality of the manuscript, the journal’s standards and the suitability of the work for publication.

Once reviewer reports have been received, the editorial team evaluates the comments and makes a decision. The corresponding author will receive an editorial decision letter, together with anonymised reviewer comments where applicable.Possible editorial decisions include:
• Accepted: The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and may proceed to editing and production.
• Minor revisions required: The manuscript requires limited changes before acceptance.
• Major revisions required: The manuscript requires substantial improvement and may need further review.
• Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements or is unsuitable for publication.

Where revisions are required, authors must respond carefully to all reviewer and editorial comments. A revised manuscript should be submitted together with a response document explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Revision Process
Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts within the timeframe provided by the journal. The revised submission must clearly address the issues raised by reviewers and editors.The editorial team may review the revised manuscript internally or send it back to the original reviewers for further assessment, especially where major revisions were requested. Failure to address reviewer comments adequately may result in further revision requests or rejection.

Final Acceptance and Publication Preparation
Once the manuscript meets the required scholarly, ethical and editorial standards, it may be formally accepted for publication. After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, layout formatting, metadata preparation, DOI assignment where applicable and final publication.Authors may be asked to review proofs before publication. At this stage, only minor corrections should be made. Major changes to the manuscript are not normally permitted after acceptance unless requested by the editorial team.

ACIJ is committed to maintaining confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Editors, reviewers and journal staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts except to those directly involved in the editorial and publication process.The journal also expects reviewers and editors to act with integrity, fairness and professionalism. Any concerns relating to plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, unethical research conduct, authorship disputes, or conflicts of interest will be handled in accordance with accepted publication ethics standards.

ACIJ aims to complete the peer review process within approximately four weeks from submission. However, this timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the quality of the initial submission and the extent of revisions required.The journal makes reasonable efforts to ensure that reviews are completed within designated timelines while maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer review process.

The peer review process at ACIJ is intended not only to assess manuscripts but also to support authors in strengthening their work. Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, respectful, balanced and constructive feedback that helps improve the manuscript’s academic quality and practical relevance.

Manuscripts submitted for special issues of ACIJ follow the same peer review standards and procedures as manuscripts submitted for regular issues. All special issue submissions are subject to initial editorial screening, plagiarism and similarity checks, double-blind peer review by at least two independent subject-matter experts, revision where required, and final editorial approval before publication. Guest editors, where appointed, may assist with identifying suitable reviewers and managing the thematic focus of the special issue; however, all manuscripts must meet the journal’s normal scholarly, ethical, methodological and editorial standards. The final decision to accept, request revisions, or reject a special issue manuscript rests with the Chief Editor or the assigned editorial authority of ACIJ. This ensures that special issue articles are evaluated with the same level of rigour, fairness, confidentiality and quality control as articles published in regular issues.