Peer review policy

Rigorous, impartial and confidential review
Cahiers Africains de Rhétorique uses double-blind peer review. This process supports the scientific quality of articles and helps authors improve their manuscripts.

Download the article review form
Reviewers can download the journal’s English review form in Word format and complete it to prepare their report.
Download the article review form (.docx)

1. Double-blind review

Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. The editorial office knows these identities and maintains the confidentiality of exchanges.

Authors provide an anonymised manuscript and a separate file containing their identification details. The version intended for review must not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgements or metadata that directly identify the authors.

2. Editorial screening and scientific assessment

The editorial office first checks whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scope, formatting instructions and research integrity requirements. A manuscript that does not meet these requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external review.

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to two reviewers with expertise relevant to the topic. Their reports inform the editorial decision and, where necessary, suggest ways to improve the manuscript.

3. Assessment criteria and quality of reports

• Relevance of the topic and contribution to the journal’s fields.
• Originality of the contribution and clarity of the research question.
• Rigour of the approach, methodology and analysis.
• Coherence of the argument and soundness of the conclusions.
• Relevance of sources, accuracy of citations and quality of presentation.

Reports are objective, reasoned and constructive. Comments concern the manuscript; personal criticism of authors is excluded. Reviewers distinguish essential corrections from suggestions for improvement.

4. Editorial decision and revision

The editorial office makes its decision on the basis of the reports and its own assessment of the manuscript. Authors receive the decision and relevant comments: acceptance, a request for revision or rejection.

When revision is requested, authors submit a revised manuscript and a response to reviewers’ comments. They explain the changes made and justify any recommendation they have not followed. Further review may be necessary. A request for revision does not constitute final acceptance.

5. Timelines and publication frequency

• Review: announced timeframe of 30 days.
• Author revisions: announced timeframe of 15 days.
• Publication: announced timeframe of 180 days.
• Frequency: two issues per year.

These timeframes are indicative and may vary according to reviewer availability, the extent of revisions and the editorial schedule. The editorial office specifies the deadlines applicable to each manuscript and informs authors of significant delays.

Acceptance and rejection statistics will be reported when they can be established from editorial records, with an explicit reference period and calculation method.

6. Confidentiality and use of information

Manuscripts, reports and editorial exchanges are confidential. Reviewers must not distribute them, make their comments public or discuss them with third parties without permission from the editorial office.

Unpublished information, data or ideas obtained through review must not be used for personal purposes or in other work without the authors’ permission.

7. Expertise, availability and conflicts of interest

A reviewer who lacks the necessary expertise or cannot meet the requested deadline promptly informs the editorial office and declines the assignment. Reviewers disclose any conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality, including collaborative or competitive relationships and personal, professional or institutional links with the authors. The editorial office determines the appropriate measures, including appointing another reviewer.

8. Sources and research integrity

Reviewers identify relevant work that has been insufficiently considered, inaccurate citations and substantial similarities with existing publications. Suspected plagiarism, fabrication or falsification is reported confidentially to the editorial office, together with supporting evidence. Such concerns are examined in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

Useful information
Read the Author Guidelines and the submission page.
Questions about a decision or manuscript progress: cahiersafricainsderhetorique@gmail.com.

9. Independent decisions and review records

The two reviewers are independent of the authors and selected for their subject expertise. At least one review is assigned to a specialist outside the authors’ institution. Collaboration, supervision and conflicts of interest are considered before assigning the manuscript.

When a member of the journal leadership or board submits an article, that person takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision on their manuscript. An uninvolved editor handles the submission. Special issues and invited contributions follow the same scholarly standards.

The editorial team retains manuscript versions, reports, responses and reasoned decisions in OJS, with access restricted to authorised participants. Articles display submission, acceptance and publication dates. The usual 30-day review target does not guarantee acceptance or publication within that period.

10. Assessing contribution and scholarly coherence

Reviewers explain in their report: the article’s original contribution; its relationship to the journal’s research areas; whether the corpus and method support the conclusions; and how the findings relate to relevant scholarship. An African corpus is assessed for its scholarly contribution, without requiring international comparison in every case.

The report distinguishes mainly descriptive writing from analysis producing well-supported findings. Scholarly merit takes precedence over an author’s reputation, institution or the manuscript’s topic alone.