Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

NJAP is committed to serving the scientific community through a transparent and rigorous peer review process. The Editorial Board comprises applied physicists and scientists who are recognised experts across the journal's subject areas, all dedicated to upholding the highest standards of scientific quality and integrity.

NJAP employs a single-blind peer review process: the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors at any stage. All submissions must pass a Turnitin similarity check before proceeding to editorial review.

Stage 1 — Similarity Screening (Turnitin)

Every manuscript submitted to NJAP is screened using Turnitin immediately upon receipt. The following thresholds apply:

• Above 35%: Rejected outright. The manuscript does not proceed to any further review.
• Between 20% and 35%: Returned to the author(s) with a requirement to reduce the similarity index before the manuscript can continue in the process.
• Below 20%: Proceeds to editorial screening.

Stage 2 — Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the similarity check are assessed by the Editor to determine whether they fall within NJAP's scope, meet the journal's minimum standards of scientific quality and originality, and comply with the author guidelines. Manuscripts that fail any of these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.

Stage 3 — External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Authors are required to supply a list of five suggested reviewers (name, title, institution, and email address) at the point of submission; the editorial team may use these suggestions at its discretion.

Based on the reviewers' assessments, the Editor arrives at one of the following decisions:

• The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted.
• The manuscript requires minor revisions — the author must address specific reviewer comments before final acceptance is confirmed.
• The manuscript requires major revisions — a substantially revised manuscript must be resubmitted for a further review cycle.
• The manuscript is rejected.

Revised Manuscripts

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must include:

• The revised manuscript file with all changes clearly marked
• A detailed point-by-point response document addressing every comment raised by the reviewers

The revised manuscript is ordinarily returned to the original reviewers to verify whether concerns have been adequately addressed. A further revision cycle or rejection may follow.

Grounds for Rejection

NJAP may reject a manuscript at any stage if it:

• Falls outside the journal's scope
• Does not meet the required standards of scientific novelty, relevance, or rigour
• Has a Turnitin similarity index exceeding 35%
• Contains methodological errors that undermine the reliability of the reported results
• Lacks sufficient originality following full peer review
• Has not been adequately revised in response to reviewer concerns
• Does not include the required five suggested reviewers, machine-readable citations, or other mandatory submission requirements

Appeal Process

Authors may appeal a rejection decision within 30 days of receiving the decision by contacting the NJAP Editorial Office. The appeal must include:

• A clear, concise explanation (no more than one page) of the scientific grounds for reconsideration
• Point-by-point responses to the technical concerns raised during review
• Proposed revisions or corrections, where applicable
• A statement of the paper's contribution and significance in the field of applied physics

Expected Timeline

The expected time from submission to publication is 1–2 months. Fast-tracking is not available under any circumstances.

Contact and Support

For enquiries related to the peer review process, contact the NJAP Editorial Office:
Website: https://njap.nipngr.org/index.php/njap/about/contact
NIP Contact: info@nipngr.org | +2348036251745