• _H7A4385.JPG
  • photo_2022-02-02_15-06-15.jpg
  • photo_2022-02-02_15-05-54.jpg
  • Sport .jpg
  • 1Mou_Mendela-5.jpg
  • F9.jpg
  • 2H7A5189.JPG
  • 2H7A5386.JPG
  • photo_2022-02-02_15-05-53.jpg
  • 1Mou_Mendela-2.jpg
  • 2H7A5279.JPG
  • fard.jpg
  • 2H7A5644.jpg
  • Cafeteria.jpg
  • photo_2023-05-15_05-26-48.jpg
  • F10.jpg
  • Library.JPG
  • photo_2023-05-15_05-26-45.jpg
  • F6.jpg
  • 2H7A8882.JPG
  • F3.jpg
  • 2H7A1574.JPG
  • meeting.jpg
  • F5.jpg
  • F8.jpg

Who's Online

We have 169 guests and no members online

Salale Journal of Business and Economics’s policies

  1. Organizational Structure of SJBE

Salale Journal of Business and Economics has an Advisory Board and Editorial Board. Each advisory and the editorial board have eleven and eight members, respectively. The organogram of SJBE is shown as follow.

  • Advisory Board of Salale Journal of Business and Economics

The Advisory Board (AB) is composed of respected academicians or researchers from different geographic regions who support the editorial board to develop and strengthen the journal. Advisory Board members are from all discipline based on the journal sub-themes and acts as ambassadors for the journal.

  • Responsibilities of the Advisory Board
  1. Provide professional advice on the peer review and publishing policies of journal, Commenting on Special Issues, and if necessary suggestions for reviewers to the Editor-in-Chief and Editor of the Journal.
  2. Offer expertise to the Editor-in-Chief and Editors of the Journal as to how SJBE can be developed.
  3. Holding periodic meetings for enhancement of office administration, journal sustainability and quality issues.
  4. Reviewing draft documents of manuals and instructions, drafted by Editorial Board, related to publication processes.
  5. Consulting the journal editor-in-chief related to journal office administration and publication process.
  6. Promote SJBE and recommend it to their colleagues, peers, other institutions, colleagues and students, and in the conferences.
    • Number and composition of Advisory Board members

The total number of the Advisory Board members of SJBE is eleven of which six members are International Advisory Board members; four are National Advisory Board members preferably individuals representing the major field of business and economics mentioned under the scope of the journal; and the rest 1 is from Salale University. They are selected from recognized national and international institutions including universities, research centers, and professional associations.

  • Qualification and experience of Advisory Board members

Members in the Advisory Board should have a minimum of PhD-assistant professor in the fields of business and economics, and have adequate exposure in scientific journal writing, publishing, reviewing, editing or managing. The selection is made based on their curriculum vitae, reputation, previous affiliation with and /or contribution for higher education institutions and/or research institutions and/or professional associations.

  • Appointment and terms of service

The Advisory Board members are suggested by the Editorial Board members. The selected members are then communicated by the Dean of College of Business and Economics and appointed by the Vice President for Academic, Research, Technology Transfer, and Community Service. The terms of service for the selected members are three years. However, based on prior communication and arrangement with the Editor-in-Chief and engaged members can be selected more than once.

  • Editorial Board

All Editorial board members must obey the direction provided by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Academic Journals require all editors and Editorial Board members to adhere to COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Editorial Board members must be peers whose judgment is highly regarded within the journal’s main discipline; or their decisions may not be regarded as valid. To some extent the quality of a journal is judged by the members and academic credentials of its Editorial Board members.

  • Number and composition of the Editorial Board members

The composition of the journal Editorial Board members should be from all discipline that the journal scope focuses based on the journal sub themes having the following structure and number:

  • One Editor-in-Chief
  • One Managing Editor
  • Four Academics Editors
  • One Language Editor

Therefore, the Editorial Board of the journal has seven members chosen for their expertise based on the scope, sub-themes of the journal and their international presence in the field.

  • Qualifications and experience of the Editorial Board members

The journal Editorial Board typically consists of a group of prominent people in the journal’s field. All Editorial Board members should fit with the focus and scope of the journal and represent each journal subtheme. The Editorial Board members should have long years research experience and several publications in his/her area of expertise, and be committed to participating in the process of providing timely, high-quality reviews for the journal. An editorial board member should demonstrate scholarly expertise and ethical leadership, excellence in the article review process, commitment to attend meetings and carry out the responsibilities, and academically fit for the purpose of the journal issue.

  • Appointment and Terms of Service of each Board Member

The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor are selected on the basis of criteria based competition, and endorsed by the Academic Council of College of Business and Economics. Their term of office is three years, and they can be reselected for one additional term. The Academics Editors representing the specific research areas/discipline is also selected from the identified departments on the basis of criteria based competition and endorsed by the Academic Council of the College. The term of office for an academics editor is two years, and they can be reselected for one additional term. Similarly, the language and technical editor is selected on the basis of criteria based competition, and endorsed by the Academic Council of College of Business and Economics. The term of office for the language and technical editor is two years, and he/she can be reselected for one additional term.

  • General duties and responsibilities of the Editorial Board

Aside from providing prestige, the role of the Editorial Board is to advise and support the Editors. Briefly the duties of the Editorial Board may include:

  • Identifying new topics for commissions, special editions and advising on direction for the journal giving feedback on past issues and making suggestions for both subject matter and potential authors
  • Provide content by writing occasional Editorials and other short articles
  • Approaching potential contributors
  • Peer review; also help to identify peer reviewers and provide second opinions on papers (i.e. where there is a conflict between reviewers)
  • Identify appropriate conferences for editors to attend
  • Endorse the journal to authors, readers and subscribers and encourage colleagues to submit their best work.
  • Strive and work in team for the betterment of the article published by the journal
  • Detailed duties and responsibilities of each Editorial Board members

To achieve the journal’s objective, the Editorial Board members of the journal shall have specified duties and responsibilities. The details of duties and responsibilities of the journal Editorial Board members are described as below.


Editor-in-Chief is the most senior editor who has overall responsibility for the journal. Editor-in-Chief remains the chairperson of the board, hence allowed to take the final decision in any regard. The Editor-in-Chief serves as chair of the Editorial Board, and is responsible for the overall management of the journal including the maintenance of the journal's content and quality. The Editor-in-Chief and other members of the Editorial Board develop procedures for manuscript submission, review and reviewer criteria, acceptance and publication of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief may delegate Editorial roles to other members of the Editorial Board. He/she develops, in consultation with other Board members and the Advisory Board, systems to enhance the advancement of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief also handles, by presenting the matter to the Board through the Academics editor, the appeal procedure for manuscripts that are rejected. The Editor-in-Chief assigns appropriate Academics editor for specific papers and also notifies the author when a manuscript is accepted or not for publication.

Editor- in- chief should be with a minimum academic rank of Assistant Professor in a relevant subject and must have at least two article publications on a reputable journal.

Managing Editor

The Managing Editor assists the Editor-in-Chief in judging a manuscript to be accepted or rejected; supports in taking decisions and communicating with other Editorial Board members. Managing Editor fills the role of both serving as an editorial board member in peer review process as well as ensuring the publication of high quality papers in the Journal. Managing Editor is responsible for the quality of journal content and the published articles. He/she encourages the submission of high quality papers, and provides fair and constructive feedback to the contributors, editors and reviewers. He/she also assists Editor-in-Chief in setting annual objectives, in handling ethical issues, in handling complaints and appeals regarding the publication standards, and in conducting regular and ordinary meetings. The Managing Editor ensures that the manuscript is neither plagiarized nor published elsewhere. He/she need to take up the role of Editor-in-Chief when he/she is not available.

Managing Editor also commissions articles; coordinates peer review; liaises with authors, reviewers and board members; writes short editorials, news and research highlights, and carries out heavy developmental/technical editing of manuscripts.  The Managing Editor should be with a minimum academic rank of Assistant Professor in a relevant subject and must have at least two article publications on a reputable journal.


Academics Editors

An academics editor should be with a minimum academic rank of Lecturer in a relevant subject and must have at least one article publication on a reputable journal.

The tasks of Academics Editors are as follows:

  • Review and evaluate the professional and technical content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication in the journal
  • Recommend to the Editor-in-Chief the course of action that should be taken regarding a manuscript submitted to the journal.
  • Obtaining and inviting reviewers for manuscripts assigned to them.
  • Receiving manuscripts
  • Monitoring the work of the reviewers
  • Observing the reviewers’ comments on an article
  • Replying to authors on the status of the manuscripts
  • Following up of review and publication processes
  • Following up publication production process, promoting and marketing of the journal.
  • Announcing the final decision made for the article
  • Prepares budget and submit it to the Editorial Board for approval.

Journal secretary

The Journal Secretary is responsible to provide an efficient and responsive secretarial and administrative support to the Editorial Board. In general the duties include effective handling of information using tact and discretion; managing files (document paper and electronic information); ensuring correspondence and calls on behalf of the Editorial Board members; preparing correspondence on his behalf, including drafting general replies and processing expenses claims. Moreover, the Journal Secretary is responsible to prioritize and respond to enquiries by letter, telephone and email, directing them as appropriate; coordinate and manage meetings and conference calls, take minutes and ensuring arrangements are effectively managed; prepare summary information and annual reports; liaise between Human Resources in organizing the recruitment of new staff; establish efficient office systems including filing, handling and disposing of confidential information and ensure that the group web-pages and internet site is up to date.

Language Editor

The Language Editor ensures that the document is structurally correct (spelling, punctuation, and grammar) and stylistically consistent. He/she compares the final version of the document with the marked-up version to make sure that all corrections have been made. He/she also reviews both content (for completeness, accuracy, and appropriate language) and form (for organization, visual design, and usability) of the article.

  • Reporting mechanism of the Editorial Board

As stated above, the Editorial Board of the journal are a group of individuals working as a team with the Editor-in-Chief with the ultimate objective of developing an outstanding journal and promoting new initiatives for improvement. The Editorial Board of the journal, chaired by Editor-in-Chief, is accountable to the Vice President for Academic, Research, Technology Transfer and Community Service. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal directly reports to the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board of the journal has a regular communication forum among members. Depending on the availability of funding, the Editorial Board of the journal shall make face to face meetings to discuss on issues including: to advice on journal policy, guideline and scope; to work with the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor about the ongoing development of the journal; to identify topics for special issue; to recommend a conference which would promote the journal.

  • Editorial Board Meetings Mode and Frequency
  • Editorial Board meetings are useful opportunities to meet with the quorum or all of the Editorial Board members to brief them on issues, take questions and also gain ideas for policies and upcoming journal editions. The meetings can be done face to face, or via webinars/zoom/Google meet or other e-meeting platforms.
  • Where Board meetings are not possible, the meeting can be arranged on an individual basis at conferences or other events. The board members’ meeting is a key way of networking and building and strengthening the relationship with the Editorial Board members.
  • The meeting is conducted regularly once per quarter, and can be held as an ordinary meeting when deemed necessary.
  1. Editorial Policy of the Journal

The editorial policy deals on the work ethics and principles of the Editorial Board that govern the work relationships between members of the Editorial Board, editors, reviewers and the author(s).

  • Confidentiality

No information shall be disclosed about any submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding            author, authors, potential reviewers,  actual reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Manuscripts received for review            must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

  • Privileged Information/Transparency

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's or reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

  • Editorial Freedom

Interference with the editorial freedom of editors construes misconduct. Editors and other Editorial Board members have total freedom in performing their duties. Any form of interference with the editorial freedom of Editors and other Editorial Board members either from the publisher or any other organization or persons is strictly forbidden. 

  • Correction policy

Editors should recognize their responsibility to correct errors that were previously published. The policy is to consider refutations of first submitted version of the manuscript, and publish them (in concise form) if and only if an author provides compelling evidence that a major claim of the original paper was incorrect. Refutations are peer-reviewed, and where possible they are sent to the same referees who reviewed the original paper. A copy is also sent to the corresponding author of the original paper for signed comments. Refutations are typically published in the commentary section, sometimes with a brief response from the original authors. Moreover, complaints and disagreements over interpretation and other matters should be addressed to the Editorial Board of the Journal.

  • Dissemination and subscription policy

The Editorial Board of Salale Journal of Business and Economics has the right to disseminate published manuscripts in hard or soft copy. The journal may provide open access to all of its contents on the principle that making research available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Moreover, it is believed that such access is associated with increased readership and citation of an author’s work. Institutions and individuals can subscribe the copies of the journal.

  1. Authorship Policy

Authorship is based on the following four criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
  • Final approval of the version to be published;
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

It is the responsibility of the corresponding authors that the names, addresses and affiliations of all authors are correct and in the right order, that institutional approvals have been obtained and that all authors have seen and agreed to a submission. This includes single authorship papers where appropriate.

  • Author(s) responsibilities

The journal requires an author or authors of a manuscript to sign a form of submission prepared for this purpose. The submission to the journal means that the author(s) agree(s) to all of the contents of the form. The corresponding author for a co-authored manuscript is solely responsible for ensuring the agreement and managing all communications between the Journal and the co-author(s), before and after publication. Before submission, the corresponding author should ensure that the names of all authors of the manuscript are included on the author list, the order of the names of the authors should appeared as agreed by all author, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted. Any changes to the authors list after submission, such as change in the order of the author, or the deletion or addition of authors, needs to be approved by a signed letter from every author. After acceptance, the proof is sent to the corresponding author to circulate it to all co-authors, and deal with the journal on their behalf. The Journal shall not necessarily correct errors after publication. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all contents in the proof, particularly including the correct spelling of the names of co-authors, and their current addresses and affiliations. After publication, the Journal regards the corresponding author as the point of contact for queries about the published manuscript, and that it is his/her full responsibility to inform all co-authors about matters arising from the publication processes and that such matter is dealt with promptly. The corresponding author’s role is to ensure that enquiries are answered promptly on behalf of all the co-authors. The names and e-mail addresses of the author is published in the paper.

  • Retractions Policy

With prior permission of the Editorial Board, authors have the right to retract submitted manuscripts in case they decide to do so. Authors of a published material have the responsibility to inform the Journal promptly if they become aware of any part of their manuscript that requires correcting. The corrected part of the article is mentioned in the next issue. In fact, any published correction requires the consent of all co-authors, so time is saved if requests for corrections are accompanied by signed agreement by all authors (in the form of a scanned attachment to an email).

  • Conflict of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other relevant interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts (i.e. should ask academics editor or other member of the editorial board to review and consider) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, funders, or institutions connected to the paper or any relevant interests in organizations that might benefit or suffer from publication of the work.

  • Plagiarism

A manuscript must be an original research work characterized either by the discovery of new facts or by a fresh interpretation of facts or theories or should consist of applied work such as developing and modifying special instruments or apparatus. Salale Journal of Business and Economics doesn’t allow more than 30 percent plagiarism.

4.         Open access policy

Open Access journals have the tendency to make their publications freely available without licensing and copy right restriction; accessed by anybody from anywhere without any discrimination; and can be used freely by anyone. Given the various benefits that Salale University can get releasing OA journal, publications of the journal could at first be disseminated through library repository mechanism. In the course of time, the journal might make its publicati

5.        Peer Review Policy

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review is impossible should notify the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process. Reviewers should be honest, objective and free from personal prejudice. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers with excellent experience, dedication and passion to meticulously review the submitted manuscript should be identified by the Academics Editors short after the receipt of the manuscript. The reviewer guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the critical points (points of focus) that should be kept in mind during review process should be submitted to the identified reviewers along with the manuscript to be reviewed and the manuscript evaluation format. All identified reviewers should be informed by the Academics Editors to strictly adhere on the journal’s guidelines for reviewers.

  • Journal Review Process

The Editorial Board, more specifically the Academics editor, is authorized for the selection and assignment of reviewers. Since reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, the Editorial Board should base its choice of reviewers on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, professional convent, willingness and their own previous experience of a reviewer’s personality and quality. The concerned Academics editor should communicate the available potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review.

  • The Initial Review Process

When manuscripts are submitted for journal editors, they shall pass through the following rigorous review procedures:

  • The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an email address to be created by SJBE editor in chief.
  • The Editor-in-Chief acknowledges the receipt of a manuscript and checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point. The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. If the manuscript passes this stage Editor-in-chief assigns the manuscript to the appropriate Academics editor within one week;
  • In collaboration with the Editorial Board, the academics editor decides on whether a manuscript is to be accepted as original full length article or review article.
    • Reviewers’ Invitation and Review by Reviewers
  • Once accepted for external review, the Academics editor in the respective discipline identifies potential reviewers with appropriate specialty /expertise and send typically for two reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on new statistics or a particular technique). To make things easy, reviewing form/guideline shall be sent which the reviewers fill and return along with the articles (Appendix V) and the reviewers are requested to review and return the manuscript within four weeks of their receipt. Reviewers shall report their decisions to the Academics editor based on the evaluation form as to ‘accept as it is’, ‘accept with minor revision’, ‘accept with major revision’, ‘reject and resubmit’ or ‘reject’;
  • Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
  • The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
  • The academics editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviewers’ decision differ (i.e., “Accept” Categories versus “Reject” categories), the managing or academics editor may reject or invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
    • Final Decision
      • The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The Journal follows double-blind review.
      • If accepted, the paper is sent to Editor-in chief. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the academics editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the academics editor.
      • Then Editor-in chief presents the review process for editorial board, based on the academics editor’s and, reviewers’ comments and suggestions, the Editorial Board should make a decision from the following several possibilities:
    • ‘Accept as it is’,
    • ‘Accept with minor revision’,
    • ‘Accept with major revision’,
    • ‘Reject and resubmit’,
    • ‘Reject’

Editorial Board decisions should not be a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and does not always follow the majority recommendation. Rather, the Board should evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by the author and each reviewer, and may also consider other information not available to either party. The editors’ primary responsibilities are serving their readers and the scientific community at large. In deciding how best to serve them, the Board must also weigh the claims of each paper. Moreover, the Editorial Board evaluates the submitted manuscript from the perspective of the new information the manuscript going to add to the existing scientific literature.

  • If a manuscript is accepted with modifications, it is returned to the author by the Academics editor for revision (in a week time following receipt from the reviewers)
  • Rejected manuscripts are returned to the corresponding author by the Academics editor/Editor-in-Chief.
  • Manuscripts accepted with minor revision should be timely revised by the authors to the best satisfaction of the reviewers and the Editorial Board;
  • Manuscripts accepted with ‘major revision’ and revised by authors thereof shall be received by the Academics editor (within two weeks’ time) and then resent to the previous reviewers to be checked for proper incorporation of comments (preferably in one week time). If approved by reviewers and the Editorial Board, the manuscript shall be accepted for publication;
  • A maximum of one week is given for incorporation of comments for ‘minor revision’. The manuscript shall then be accepted for publication.
  • A maximum of two weeks are given for incorporation of comments for ‘Major revision’. Decision on the revised manuscript is made based on the level of reviewers and Academics Editors satisfaction. In case if additional review process is needed the manuscript may be resent to the reviewers
  • Authors should re-submit the revised manuscript and a separate file stating the authors’ response to each and every comment (line by line) given by both reviewers and Academics editor.
  • In the review process the authors' and reviewer's anonymity is preserved (the journal follows a double blind process);
  • Manuscripts accepted by both reviewers with or without minor Editorial revision shall be edited by the Academics editor and then presented to the Editor-in-Chief for approval;
  • If a manuscript is rejected by one of the reviewer but accepted (with minor or major revision) by the other reviewer, the final decision shall be made by Editorial Board;

Editors may return manuscripts to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of facts. When this happens, the Board should ask the reviewers whether they are willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. Editors should be very aware, however, that reviewers usually tend to be reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so they try to keep consultation to the minimum judgment necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the Board should consider this as a commitment to reviewing subsequent revisions. However, a resubmitted paper is not sent back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

The Editorial Board takes reviewers’ criticisms seriously particularly by being very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes manuscript publication, editors may consult the other reviewer as to whether he/she is applying an unduly critical standard. Otherwise, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer to resolve disputes and/or make the final decision on acceptance, but editors should avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example, a special technical point on which editors feel a need for further advice.

  • A manuscript rejected by two reviewers shall be rejected, and the corresponding author is then notified by the Editor-in-Chief;
  • Delay in returning corrected proofs as per the specified period may result in the paper being held over to the next issue. At this stage, corrections must be limited only to essential and Editorial mistakes;
  • The review report

As a matter of policy, editors should not suppress reviewers’ reports; any comments that are intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what the Board may think of the content. Whenever necessary, the Board may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information.

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their manuscript to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the manuscript for publication elsewhere. This is secondary to the other functions; however, referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice to authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for the journal. If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the corresponding author should be brief and consistent to enable the author(s) to understand the reason for the decision.

Editors ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offense; conversely, reviewers are strongly encouraged to state plainly their opinion of the manuscript.

  • Timeline from Submission to Publication

The journal should be committed to rapid decisions and publication of high quality articles. Similarly, editors should ensure that an efficient Editorial process is a valuable service to the authors, the scientific community as well as to the reputability of the journal. In this respect, it is believed that the Editorial process could be completed within the following timeline.

Table:  Estimated timeline for the major steps in the editorial process



Maximum  Estimated time

Implementing body


Preliminary assessment

Two weeks

Editorial Board


Selection of reviewers

One week

Editorial Board



Four weeks




Two weeks




Two weeks

Board members



One week



Language & layout edition

Three weeks

Language and Technical editor


Technical edition

Two weeks

Language and Technical editor


Proof correction

One week


The time required from submission to publication is expected to be a maximum of six months. However, some articles take longer time and some other less time, and therefore the decision and reviewers’ comments should be timely communicated to the author to minimize the time. Publication of the journal should be continuous, i.e., once editors have five to seven articles ready for publication, they proceed to publish that issue.

Prior to/during request for reviewing, the Academics editor should ask reviewers to respond within the set time. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, editors ask reviewers to let them know that editors can keep the authors informed, and, where necessary, find an alternative (if timely assessment reports would not be found, editors would request the assessor to return the manuscript and send it to another assessor). Authors are also required to respond within the set time if they are requested to reorganize or revise the submitted manuscripts as per the reviewers’ comment.

  • Proof correction

Page proofs are sent to the author, shortly before publication, as an Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF) file attachment to an e-mail message. This is essentially the final form in which the paper appears. Minor alterations may be made, to conform to scientific, technical, stylistic or grammatical standards.

Although proofs are checked before they are sent to the author(s), it is the responsibility of the author(s) to review page proofs carefully, and to check for correctness of citations, formulae, omissions from the text, etc. Author(s) should return their corrections within seven (7) working days from the date on which the proofs were sent to them. Failure to do so causes the paper to be printed as in the page proofs.

  1. Color of the Journal

The background color of the journal is light blue on which there is interconnected world by white color lines. The name of the journal and other texts on the cover pages of the journal are written in red rose color.




Visitors Counter



Oromia Health Bureau

Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute

Oromo Research and Cultural  Development Center Ethiopian Radiation Protection Authority Books for Africa




The University of Kansas

Southern Medical University

Vellore Institute of Technology University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Saharsa Crop Science



Catholic Relief Service

Jiangsu University

Nelson Mandela University Netherlands Senior Experts Group Lebniz University



Indiana State University –USA

Ohio State University -USA

Geological Survey of Ethiopia National Animal Health Diagnostic and Investigation Center Entrepreneurship Development Center




STEM Power Ethiopia

Livestock Development Institute

Salale Development Group Initiative Environment and Coffee Forest Forum Federal Forest Development Institute