Editorial Policies


The following guidelines are meant to help in preparing a successful proposal. It is necessary that you follow them in detail, in order to enable the Editorial Team assess the academic merits of your proposal. Proposals that do not follow the requirements indicated in this document will be returned to its author(s) for revision.

Following the acceptance of a proposal, each Special Issue (SI) will be managed by a guest editor who will work directly with the individual authors of papers. After the guest editor checks to ensure that papers are well written with minimal grammatical errors, and that they adhere to the style requirements of LJH (see Author Guidelines under Submissions), they will be uploaded to the UG Journal Management system for the double-blind peer review process to begin. The review process will be managed by the guest editors within the system and supervised by a member of the LJH editorial team. If the contents or style of a paper is judged to be of poor quality, either by the guest editors or the LJH member overseeing the SI, it may be rejected and not considered any further. The final decision on acceptance/rejection is made by the LJH Editor.

Please use this LJH template to prepare your proposal, which must have the following:

  • Titleof the proposed SI
  • Goal of the proposedSI
  • Bioof guest editors (300 words for each editor)
  • Backgroundof the proposal (e.g. colloquium, conference, special invitation)
  • Relevance to current research
  • Projectedreadership
  • Titleand abstract (200 words) for each paper
  • Namesof two reviewers for each paper (affiliations and email addresses should be added. Kindly note that contributors to the special issue cannot serve as reviewers of the papers in the issue, and reviewers should be from an institution other than that of the author whose work is under review).
  • Anticipated dateof completion.

In addition to the editorial, a maximum of eight papers will be included in the issue.

Please note that guest editors and authors can make only one submission (single or co-authored) at the same time to LJH in general. Proposed reviewers for each paper should first indicate their acceptance to be involved in the review process before their names are included in the proposal. The LJH editorial team may request for reviews from additional or different reviewers if they consider it necessary.

An editorial essay (of a maximum of 4,000 words) authored by the guest editor(s) is required. in addition to the 8 papers contributed to the Special Issue. The editorial essay must situate and contextualize the papers in the SI, justify how they form a coherent set, and provide a brief outline of each of the contributions.




Initial manuscript evaluation

LJH has a process where any submitted manuscript is first screened internally by the editorial team. If the submission is not a good fit for the journal, it can be rejected at this point and will not proceed to the peer review stage. The author may be given some feedback about which outlets might be a better fit and some initial comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. Other details taken into consideration during the initial screening include correct language usage, avoidance of plagiarism and compliance with the LJH Author Guidelines (available on the journal’s website). It is important to note that papers which do not adhere to the LJH instructions for authors will not be taken into consideration for publication. Manuscripts that successfully go through the internal review process are then anonymized and assigned to two peer reviewers with relevant expertise for a double-blind peer review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at the Initial manuscript evaluation stage will usually be informed within two weeks of receipt of the submission.

Type of peer review
The Legon Journal of the Humanities employs ‘double blind’ reviewing. The reviewers are anonymous to the author(s) during and after the refereeing process. Likewise, the identity of the author(s) is unknown to the reviewers.

How reviewers are selected
The Legon Journal of the Humanities  strives to match reviewers to the submissions according to their expertise. The reviewer database of LJH is frequently updated. Persons who are interested in serving as reviewers for the journal should send an email to the Editor, together with their updated CVs.

Review reports
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original with reference to contents and method
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Clearly presents results which support the conclusions
  • Appropriately and exhaustively references previous relevant work
  • Adheres to appropriate ethical guidelines, especially as concerns plagiarism
  • Noticeably adds to the knowledge and development of the research area

Specifically, papers submitted are assessed in these areas:

  1. Overall general academic merit
  2. Theoretical grounding in the relevant and current literature
  3. Critical engagement with existing literature has clearly brought out the gap to be filled by the paper, thereby ensuring its extension of the frontiers of knowledge in the paper’s field
  4. Currency of pertinent cited works
  5. Quality of argumentation and reasoning
  6. Sophistication in language usage and expression
  7. Technical aspects (i.e., crafting of abstract and key words, respect of journal’s house style, and APA documentation model, etc.)

Although the peer review process does not include language correction, reviewers are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the paper. In the final round, the handling Editor will check issues of linguistic and stylistic correctness, and may return the manuscript to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.

How long does the review process take?

The duration from the time of submission to acceptance/rejection and publication of a manuscript depends on how quickly the editors obtain quality reviews from reviewers. However, the typical time for the first round of the refereeing process for the Legon Journal of the Humanities is approximately 6 weeks, with a maximum of three months. In situations where the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. Once both review reports are received by the handling Editor, a decision will be sent to the author together with the reviewers’ recommendations. Revised manuscripts are usually sent to the (initial) reviewers for checking. There may be the need for a second round of revision by the author. There are sometimes rare situations when the Editorial Team encounters extreme difficulties in finding a second reviewer to review the manuscript. In such cases, the report from the available reviewer may guide the Editor to reach a decision on the manuscript if the extant report has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor. This may be done at the discretion of the Editor of LJH, on the basis of only one reviewer report. Difficulties in finding peer reviewers in the research area(s) of the study may also lead to a rejection of a manuscript by the editors.

Final report
A final decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision will be sent to the author together with the reviewers’ recommendations and any relevant attachments.

Final decision
Reviewers advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Becoming a reviewer for the Legon Journal of the Humanities
If you would like to be a reviewer for the Legon Journal of the Humanities please contact the editorial office at editorljh@ug.edu.gh.  

Why should you be a peer reviewer?

The benefits of being a peer reviewer include the opportunity for you to:

  • Participate in the development of your field
  • Remain conversant with new trends in your field
  • Improve your research and writing abilities
  • Collaborate with journal editors which may then provide the opening for you to receive an invitation to join an editorial board
  • Gain knowledge of the publication process
  • Earn recognition for your contribution as a peer reviewer
  • Contribute to the upholding of quality control measures of the research in your field


Reviewer guidelines

The LJH follows the COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers



Authors who wish to withdraw their submissions should contact the Editor at editorljh@ug.edu.gh

Papers which are close to the end of the peer review process cannot be retracted.


Note on reviewing of Special issues and Conference Proceedings.

Different peer review procedures may apply to Special Issues and Conference Proceedings. These cases may involve guest editors, conference organizers, or scientific committees, who all report to the handling Editor and ultimately, the Chief Editor.