The peer-review process adopted in ACCE publications is a double blind process of evaluating the quality and relevance of papers submitted to the Council for publication. The peer-review process is carried out to ensure the integrity of the publication process as well as ensure everyone involved in the process behaves professionally, ethically and responsibly. Based on this, ACCE adopts the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as her main document of reference for Reviewers. This document is usually attached to all reviewers to read before undertaking the review assignment.

The Peer Review Guideline:
1. All Reviewers for the ACCE’s The Nigerian Journal of Communication must be Senior Lecturers and above with a PhD in Communication, Media Studies, Journalism, Broadcasting, Public Relations, Advertising, Film Studies, Multimedia Designs, Development Communication, Strategic Communication, Information Science/Studies, and any other related discipline. In other words, only experts in these related areas are approached as Peer-Reviewers for all ACCE publications.

2. Use the “Current Evaluation Form for ACCE Publications” for each paper reviewed to return the reviewed papers.

3. We also expect Reviewers to make helpful remarks and specific comments on the body of the paper using any of the MS Word review tools so that authors could learn from their submission.

4. Pay an honorarium of N5,000 only per successfully reviewed paper.

5. Adopt COPE’s Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere to, which states that Peer reviewers should:
A. only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner;
B. respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal;
C. not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others;
D. declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
E. not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;
F. be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments;
G. acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner;
H. provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise; and
I. recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.