Peer Review Policy
Construction Focus Journal A.B.U Zaria (CFJ) operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This policy explains how manuscripts are handled, reviewed, and decided upon, so that authors and reviewers know what to expect at every stage.
Review Process
Every manuscript is first checked by the editorial office for scope, formatting, and completeness. Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are assigned to an editor, who invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewers evaluate the originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution of the work, and submit written comments and a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) to the handling editor.
Double-Blind Anonymity
CFJ uses double-blind review: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors, throughout the process. Authors are asked to remove identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-citations that reveal identity) from the manuscript file before submission to preserve this anonymity.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected for their demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s subject area, free of competing interests with the authors or their institutions. Authors may suggest reviewers to exclude for a documented conflict of interest; the editor retains final discretion over reviewer assignment.
Review Timeline
CFJ aims to complete the first round of review within approximately 6–10 weeks of submission. Authors are notified promptly if delays are expected. Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation before a final decision is made.
Editorial Decision-Making
The handling editor weighs all reviewer recommendations alongside their own assessment before reaching a decision. Editors may accept a manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or reject it. Final decisions and the reasoning behind them are communicated to the corresponding author in writing.
Appeals
Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or on a reviewer’s error, may submit a written appeal to the editorial office explaining their concerns in detail. Appeals are considered by the editor with, where appropriate, an additional independent reviewer.