Reviewer Guidelines

1.0 Overview of the Review Process

The Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture employs a two-phase review process to ensure that every published article meets the highest standards of scholarly rigor, originality, and professional presentation. The first phase, known as the Blind Review or External Review, focuses on the substantive academic content of the submission, including its argumentation, methodology, engagement with existing literature, and contribution to the field. The second phase, known as the Internal Editing, concentrates on grammatical accuracy, language fluency, and the physical styling and typesetting of the article.

2.0 Who Serves as a Reviewer for Tasambo JLLC

It is important to clarify that reviewers for Tasambo JLLC are not limited to members of our Editorial Board or our roster of Editorial Consultants. While board members certainly participate in the review process, the journal maintains a dynamic and growing list of experienced academics from various institutions, both within Nigeria and internationally.

When a manuscript is submitted, the Corresponding Secretary examines the content and subject matter of the article and assigns it to a reviewer whose area of specialization aligns most closely with the themes and methodologies employed by the author. This discipline-based matching ensures that every submission receives a fair, informed, and expert evaluation from someone genuinely qualified to assess its scholarly merits.

3.0 Core Responsibilities of a Reviewer

Accepting an invitation to review for Tasambo JLLC carries with it several fundamental responsibilities. First and foremost, reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. No portion of the article may be shared, discussed, or cited before publication, nor may reviewers use the ideas or data contained therein for their own personal or professional benefit.

Second, reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe, which is typically two to three weeks from the date of receiving the manuscript. Should delays become unavoidable, the reviewer must notify the Corresponding Secretary as soon as possible.

Third, reviewers must evaluate the article solely on the basis of its scholarly merit, setting aside any personal bias regarding the author's identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or theoretical orientation.

Fourth, feedback provided to the author must be constructive, specific, and actionable, offering clear guidance for improvement rather than vague praise or dismissal.

Fifth and finally, reviewers must remain vigilant regarding any signs of plagiarism or other ethical violations and must report such concerns immediately to the Corresponding Secretary.

4.0 Format and Method of Submitting Your Review

To ensure clarity, consistency, and efficiency in the review process, Tasambo JLLC requires that all external reviewers use Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature alongside the Comments function. The Track Changes tool allows you to make direct edits to the text itself, including corrections of typographical errors, rephrasing of unclear sentences, and suggestions for restructuring paragraphs. The Comments feature, by contrast, enables you to explain the reasoning behind your suggested changes, to raise questions for the author, or to point out larger issues that cannot be resolved through line editing alone. When you have completed your review, you must save the annotated file and return it to the Corresponding Secretary via email. Under no circumstances should you submit a clean, unmarked copy of the article, as this deprives the author of the detailed guidance necessary for meaningful revision.

5.0 Criteria for Evaluating an Article

As you read and assess the manuscript assigned to you, we ask that you direct your attention to several key dimensions of scholarly quality. Originality stands at the forefront of these considerations: does the article contribute new knowledge, a fresh theoretical perspective, or a novel interpretation of existing materials, or does it merely rehearse what is already well established in the field?

Closely related to originality is the question of methodology: has the author articulated a clear and appropriate research approach, whether qualitative, quantitative, textual, ethnographic, or theoretical, and has that methodology been applied consistently and rigorously throughout the study? The argument of the article must be clearly stated early in the text, and every claim made thereafter should be supported by appropriate evidence, whether drawn from primary texts, fieldwork, archival sources, or secondary scholarship.

The literature review should demonstrate the author's familiarity with the key works in the relevant domain and should situate the article's contribution within ongoing scholarly conversations.

With respect to language and clarity, while the Internal Editing phase will address final grammatical polishing, reviewers should note any passages where meaning is obscured by unclear expression or where the prose requires substantial revision for readability.

Finally, the article must fall clearly within the scope of language, literature, or culture studies as defined by the journal's mission.

6.0 Plagiarism Detection and Ethical Vigilance

Tasambo JLLC takes all matters of scholarly integrity with the utmost seriousness. Before any manuscript is sent to an external reviewer, the Corresponding Secretary and his assistants conduct a thorough plagiarism check using available automated tools (mostly EagleScan). However, reviewers should be aware that these tools have significant limitations, particularly with respect to Hausa language submissions. The majority of Hausa-language scholarly materials, including books, journal articles, and unpublished theses, are not available in digital or online formats. Consequently, automated plagiarism detection software frequently fails to identify instances of unattributed borrowing from these sources. For Hausa articles, therefore, Tasambo JLLC relies primarily on the professional experience and trained judgment of expert academics in the field of Hausa studies.

If, during your review of any article, you notice elements of plagiarism that may have escaped the initial automated check, you must immediately report your concerns to the Corresponding Secretary. Do not proceed with the remainder of your review until you have received further instructions. This applies equally to English-language submissions and to any manuscript where you suspect the author has engaged in self-plagiarism, close paraphrasing without attribution, the unacknowledged reuse of previously published work, or the use of AI-generated research.

7.0 The Complete Workflow of the External Review Phase

Understanding the full phases of a manuscript through the review process will help you situate your own contributions within the larger system of quality assurance at Tasambo JLLC:

1. When an author submits an article, the Corresponding Secretary first conducts an initial plagiarism check, employing both automated software (EagleScan) and, for Hausa submissions, manual expert assessment.

2. Once the manuscript is cleared, it is assigned to you as the external reviewer. You then complete your evaluation using Track Changes and Comments, after which you return the annotated file to the Corresponding Secretary.

3. The editorial team subsequently compiles a report based on your feedback and sends it to the author, along with instructions for revision.

4. The author addresses your comments and corrections to the best of their ability, returning an updated version of the article.

5. At this point, the Corresponding Secretary sends the revised manuscript back to you for verification.

6. You shuld then examine the author's revisions to confirm that every issue you raised has been adequately addressed. Only after you have provided your final approval does the manuscript move forward to Phase B, the Internal Editing stage.

8.0 Verification of Author Revisions and Handling of Disputes

Once the author returns a corrected version of the article, the Corresponding Secretary will forward that revised manuscript to you for a second review. Your task at this stage is to verify, line by line and comment by comment, that the author has faithfully and competently addressed every suggestion and correction you originally provided.

Where the author has accepted your suggestions, you need only confirm that the implementation is correct. Where the author has chosen to dispute a particular suggestion, they are required to indicate this disagreement explicitly in a comment. You should then evaluate the author's reasoning: if you find their counterargument persuasive, you may withdraw your original suggestion; if you remain unconvinced, you may reiterate your position.

However, authors have been clearly instructed that if they return an article without fixing an issue and without indicating any disagreement in a comment, the article will be automatically rejected, and they will be required to make new submission. This policy protects the integrity of the review process and ensures that your time and expertise are respected.

If, after this exchange, you and the author continue to hold divergent views on a substantive scholarly issue, the Corresponding Secretary will escalate the matter to the Editorial Board, which will then appoint a third-party expert to adjudicate.

9.0 Transition to the ‘Internal Editing’ Phase

Once you have confirmed that all issues from the external review have been satisfactorily resolved, the manuscript proceeds to Phase B, known as Internal Review or Internal Editing. During this phase, the article is assigned to members of the Editorial Board, though on occasion the journal may engage external editors when the volume of accepted manuscripts exceeds the board's immediate capacity.

The Internal Editors focus exclusively on grammatical accuracy and physical styling. They correct obvious grammatical errors, adjust the typesetting to conform to the journal's formatting standards, and ensure consistency in citation style, heading structure, and other presentational elements. It is important to note that articles are not returned to authors during or after the Internal Editing phase. Instead, once the Internal Editors have completed their work and the final typesetting has been performed, the journal sends galley proofs to the authors. At that stage, authors must carefully review the proofs and report to the Editorial Team any concerns regarding changes made by the Internal Editors. As an external reviewer, you are not typically involved in Phase B unless the Internal Editors encounter a substantive question that requires clarification from you regarding your original review.

10.0 Confidentiality and Professional Conduct

The confidentiality of the review process is absolutely inviolable at Tasambo JLLC. You must not disclose to any third party the title, authorship, content, or findings of any manuscript you review. This prohibition extends to discussions with colleagues, postings on social media or academic networking sites such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu, and any form of public or private correspondence.

Furthermore, you may not use any portion of a manuscript you are reviewing for your own research, teaching, or publication purposes without the explicit written permission of both the author and the journal. If you find yourself in a situation where a personal or professional relationship with the author creates a potential conflict of interest, you must recuse yourself immediately and notify the Corresponding Secretary, who will assign the manuscript to another reviewer. Similarly, if you recognize the author's identity despite the blind review format, you should disclose this to the editorial team, though you may continue with the review provided you can remain objective.

11.0 Timeframe for Completion and Communication

Tasambo JLLC operates on a production schedule that requires timely completion of each stage of the review process. When you accept an invitation to review, you are committing to return your annotated manuscript and accompanying report within the timeframe specified in the invitation, typically two to three weeks. Should you require additional time due to unforeseen circumstances, you must communicate this to the Corresponding Secretary at the earliest possible opportunity. The journal is generally able to accommodate reasonable extensions, but repeated delays or failure to communicate will result in removal from the reviewer roster.

All correspondence regarding the review should be directed exclusively to the Corresponding Secretary, who serves as the central coordinator between authors, reviewers, and the Editorial Board. Please include the article title or assigned identification number in the subject line of all emails to facilitate efficient tracking.

12. Final Summary of Expectations

Before submitting your completed review, please take a moment to confirm that you have fulfilled all of the following expectations. You must have used Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature to record every direct edit you made to the text. You must have used the Comments feature to explain the rationale behind your substantive suggestions and to raise any questions or concerns that cannot be conveyed through line edits alone. You must have evaluated the article with objectivity and constructiveness, focusing on scholarly merit rather than personal preference. You must have reported any suspected plagiarism, whether in English or Hausa, immediately to the Corresponding Secretary. You must have returned your review within the agreed timeframe or communicated a request for extension in advance. Finally, you must have maintained complete confidentiality regarding the manuscript, its content, and its authorship. Adherence to these expectations ensures that Tasambo JLLC can continue to provide a fair, efficient, and professionally rigorous review process for all contributors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE

The Editorial Board of Tasambo JLLC extends its sincere gratitude to all reviewers, whose voluntary and uncompromising efforts sustain the scholarly integrity of the journal. Your expertise, diligence, and generosity with time are deeply appreciated.