Policies

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Africa Habitat Review (AHR) is a peer-reviewed academic journal of the Faculty of the Built Environment and Design, University of Nairobi. The journal applies a rigorous, transparent, and independent peer-review process to ensure academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance.

How Authors Submit Manuscripts

Authors may submit manuscripts through the following official channels:

Journal Website: https://uonjournals.uonbi.ac.ke/ojs/index.php/ahr

Editorial Office Email: sobe.ahrjournal@gmail.com

All submissions must comply with the AHR Guidelines for Authors and must not be under consideration elsewhere.

Peer Review System

Africa Habitat Review operates a double-blind peer review system, meaning:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s).
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent referees with relevant subject expertise.

Conflict of Interest (Reviewers):
Reviewers are required to declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest and must decline to review manuscripts where such conflicts exist.

Conflict of Interest (Editors):
Editors who have a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript recuse themselves from the editorial handling and decision-making process.

Reviewer identities remain confidential both during and after the peer-review process.

Typical Peer-Review Timeline

Africa Habitat Review (AHR) endeavors to ensure a timely, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process. The typical duration from manuscript submission to first editorial decision is approximately 6–10 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the nature of revisions required.

  • Submission acknowledgement and compliance check (3–7 days)
    The Editorial Office confirms receipt of the manuscript and checks scope, formatting, completeness, author information, and compliance with submission requirements.
  • Similarity screening (Turnitin) (2–5 days)
    All submissions are screened for originality using Turnitin. Manuscripts exceeding the acceptable similarity threshold are returned to authors for correction or rejected in line with journal policy.
  • Editor assignment and reviewer selection (5–10 days)
    The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns an editor (where applicable) and invites at least two anonymous expert reviewers.
  • Peer review by referees (3–5 weeks)
    Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript using the official AHR Referees’ Report Form and submit structured reports and recommendations.
  • Editorial consolidation and first decision (5–10 days)
    The Editorial Board consolidates referee comments and communicates one of the following decisions: reject, revise and resubmit; accept with minor revisions; or accept.

Revision & Final Decision Timeline (2–6 Additional Weeks)

Author revision period

  • Minor revisions: 7–14 days
  • Major revisions: 21–30 days (or as specified in the decision letter)

 Verification of revisions (1–3 weeks)
Revised manuscripts are assessed by the handling editor and, where necessary, returned to the original reviewers for confirmation. 

  • Post-Acceptance Production Timeline (2–4 Weeks)
  • Copyediting, typesetting & author proofs (2–4 weeks)
    Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and typesetting. PDF proofs are sent to authors, who are expected to return corrections within 14 days.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt, manuscripts undergo editorial screening to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Compliance with submission guidelines.
  • Academic quality and clarity.
  • Ethical compliance

Manuscripts failing to meet minimum requirements may be returned to authors before peer review.

Similarity (Plagiarism) Check

All submissions are subjected to Turnitin similarity screening.

  • Maximum acceptable similarity index: 15% (excluding references).
  • Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are returned for revision or rejected

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or other forms of publication misconduct are investigated in accordance with journal guidelines. Where misconduct is confirmed, appropriate action is taken, including rejection, correction, or retraction.

Editorial Decision Letter (Standard Format)

Faculty of the Built Environment & Design
University of Nairobi
P.O. Box 30197 – 00100
Nairobi – Kenya
sobe.ahrjournal@gmail.com

 

Africa Habitat Review Journal

The Journal of the Faculty of the Built Environment and Design

Date: January 15th, 2026

Dear Mr. ……..,

RE: ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE AHR 21(1)-2 FOR PUBLICATION IN AFRICA HABITAT REVIEW VOLUME 20, ISSUE 1 – 2026

Title: Analyzing Factors Causing Delays in Construction Projects in Rwanda: A Statistical Approach to Delay Management

We acknowledge receipt of your manuscript on January 6th, 2026.

In accordance with the editorial policy of Africa Habitat Review, all submissions are assessed through anonymous peer review before a final decision on publication is made. Your manuscript has now been reviewed, and the Editorial Board requests that you address the comments and recommendations provided in the attached Referees’ Report Form.

Kindly submit the revised manuscript by January 28th, 2026.

Please ensure that all revisions are clearly highlighted to facilitate editorial verification.

We thank you for submitting your work to Africa Habitat Review.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Robert W. Rukwaro
Editor-in-Chief
Africa Habitat Review
University of Nairobi

 

Referees’ Report Form (Official Format)

Africa Habitat Review Journal

Manuscript No: AHR
Title: Analyzing Factors Causing Delays in Construction Projects in Rwanda: A Statistical Approach to Delay Management

No.

Assessment Question

Yes

No

See Comments

1

Is the article original?

☑

☐

 

2

Is the article relevant to the journal?

☑

☐

 

3

Is the interpretation of the data correct?

☐

☑

 

4

Are the conclusions clearly articulated?

☐

☑

 

5

Is the abstract accurate?

☐

☑

 

6

Is the title suitable for the article?

☐

☑

 

7

Is the length of the article satisfactory?

☑

☐

 

8

Can certain parts of the paper be deleted?

☐

☑

 

9

Is the organisation of the paper satisfactory?

☑

☐

 

10

Should a brief statement be added?

☐

☑

 

11

Are figures and tables acceptable?

☐

☑

 

12

Are references adequate and relevant?

☐

☑

 

13

Does the article meet the similarity index requirement (<15%)?

☑

☐

See Turnitin report

Referee’s Publication Recommendation

☐ a) Not recommended for publication.
☐ b) Paper needs revision before publication.
☑ c) Recommended for publication after suggested corrections.
☐ d) Recommended for publication in its present form.

General Comments & Suggestions
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………

 Revision, Acceptance & Proofs

  • Authors must respond to all reviewer comments.
  • Revised manuscripts may be returned to referees for confirmation.
  • Accepted papers are copy-edited and typeset.
  • PDF proofs are sent to authors for approval (14-day response period).

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written request to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals and complaints are reviewed by the Editorial Board and handled in accordance with journal guidelines.

Final Decision

The Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication.
All decisions are independent of publication fees and based solely on academic merit and ethical compliance.

OPEN ACCESS POLICY

Africa Habitat Review operates under a full, immediate open-access publishing model.

  • All published articles are freely accessible online upon publication.
  • No subscription fees are charged to readers.
  • Authors retain copyright of their work.
  • Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), permitting unrestricted use, distribution, adaptation, and reproduction, provided appropriate citation is given.

The journal currently does not charge submission or publication fees (Article Processing Charges – APCs). Any future policy changes will be transparently communicated. AHR supports equitable knowledge dissemination and the democratization of research access.

REPOSITORY POLICY (SELF-ARCHIVING)

Africa Habitat Review actively encourages responsible self-archiving to maximize research visibility and citation impact.

Author Rights

Authors may deposit:

  • Preprints (submitted version prior to peer review)
  • Accepted Manuscripts (post-peer review, pre-typesetting)
  • Published Version of Record

Permitted Repositories

Authors may deposit articles in:

  • Institutional repositories
  • Subject-specific repositories
  • Personal academic websites
  • Recognized scholarly networking platforms

Conditions for Deposit

Deposited versions must:

  • Include full bibliographic citation
  • Provide DOI link to the published version
  • Preserve the integrity of the Version of Record

Embargo

No embargo period is imposed. Articles are openly accessible immediately upon publication.

ARCHIVING POLICY

Africa Habitat Review ensures permanent preservation and long-term accessibility of its scholarly content through:

  • Participation in the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN)
  • LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) system
  • Archiving within the University of Nairobi Institutional Repository

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity and permanence of the scholarly record.

PLAGIARISM POLICY

All submissions are screened using Turnitin or equivalent similarity detection software.

  • Acceptable similarity index: 15% and below (excluding references and properly cited quotations).
  • Editorial evaluation distinguishes between legitimate citation and misconduct.
  • Manuscripts containing plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or unethical conduct will be rejected.
  • Ethical breaches may result in the blacklisting of authors.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Africa Habitat Review adheres to international ethical publishing standards. The journal upholds:

  • Double-blind peer review
  • Editorial independence
  • Conflict of interest disclosure
  • Data transparency and integrity
  • Ethical treatment of human subjects
  • Anti-plagiarism standards

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with accepted scholarly ethics and COPE principles.

COPYRIGHT & LICENSING

  • Authors retain copyright.
  • Articles are published under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
  • Authors sign a publication agreement confirming originality.
  • Third-party reuse must properly credit authors and the journal source.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE POLICY

Africa Habitat Review (AHR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. All participants in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher—are expected to act with honesty, transparency, accountability, and respect for intellectual work. The journal does not tolerate misconduct and will take appropriate editorial action where ethical breaches are suspected or confirmed.

Principles of Ethical Publishing

AHR is guided by principles of integrity in research reporting, transparency in authorship and funding, fairness in editorial decision-making, accountability for published work, and respect for persons, communities, and cultural knowledge.

Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting to AHR confirm that their work is original and properly cited; that data, methods, and findings are reported accurately and without fabrication, falsification, or selective omission; and that the manuscript is not under concurrent consideration elsewhere. Authors must disclose funding sources and any conflicts of interest, obtain permissions for copyrighted material, comply with ethical requirements for studies involving human participants or sensitive data, and ensure that all listed authors meet accepted authorship criteria.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are required to provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments, to maintain confidentiality, to declare conflicts of interest, and to avoid bias or discriminatory language. Reviewers must alert the Editor to suspect ethical concerns, including plagiarism, redundant publication, or data irregularities.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors and the Editorial Board are responsible for ensuring fair, independent, and confidential peer review. Publication decisions are based on scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editors will manage conflicts of interest and take appropriate action where ethical concerns arise.

Unethical Behavior and Malpractice

Unethical behavior includes, but is not limited to: plagiarism or self-plagiarism; data fabrication or falsification; duplicate or redundant publication; improper authorship practices; undisclosed conflicts of interest; citation manipulation; failure to obtain ethical approval or protect participant confidentiality; and manipulation of the peer-review process.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct are handled confidentially and fairly. The Editor conducts an initial assessment, seeks clarification from the author where necessary, and consults the Editorial Board or external experts as appropriate. Decisions are based on evidence and proportional to the severity of the breach.

Editorial Actions and Sanctions

Where misconduct is confirmed, AHR may apply one or more actions, including manuscript rejection, withdrawal before publication, publication of corrections or expressions of concern, retraction of published articles, author submission bans, and notification of affiliated institutions in serious cases.

Post-Publication Ethics and Appeals

Ethical issues identified after publication will be addressed through corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, which will remain permanently linked to the original article. Authors may submit evidence-based appeals to the Editor-in-Chief; the decision of the Editorial Board after appeal is final.

ERRATA, CORRECTIONS, & RETRACTIONS POLICY

Africa Habitat Review (AHR) is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. Where errors or ethical concerns are identified before or after publication, the journal will take timely and transparent action through errata, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, depending on the nature and severity of the issue.

Errata (Minor Corrections)

An erratum is issued when minor errors are discovered that do not affect the validity of the findings, interpretations, or conclusions. Examples include typographical errors, minor formatting issues, incorrect author affiliations, or small factual inaccuracies that do not change the substance of the work. Errata are published as a separate notice and linked to the original article.

Corrections (Substantive Corrections)

A correction (corrigendum) is published where an error affects the clarity, accuracy, or interpretation of part of the article but does not invalidate the main results or conclusions. Corrections may relate to a table, figure, unit, citation, methodological detail, or a section of text requiring clarification. The correction notice clearly identifies what has been amended and is permanently linked to the original article.

Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when the journal has credible reason to believe there may be a significant problem with a published article, but the investigation is ongoing or inconclusive (for example, where institutional inquiries are pending). The notice will indicate that concerns have been raised and that the journal is reviewing the matter.

Retractions

A retraction is issued where a published article is found to be unreliable or where there is evidence of a serious ethical breach. Retractions may arise from, but are not limited to, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research practice, or major errors that invalidate findings. Retractions are intended to correct the scholarly record rather than to punish authors; however, where misconduct is confirmed, additional sanctions may apply.

How Notices Are Published and Linked

All errata, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are published as separate notices. Each notice will include the article title, author(s), citation details, and a clear explanation of the reason for the action. The original article will be clearly marked as retracted, while remaining accessible for the purpose of maintaining the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record.

Author Notification and Due Process

AHR will notify the corresponding author when an erratum, correction, expression of concern, or retraction is being considered. Authors may be asked to provide clarification, supporting data, or documentation. The Editorial Board makes decisions based on evidence and in line with good editorial practice.

DATASET & RESEARCH DATA POLICY

Authors are encouraged to:

  • Retain original research data.
  • Make datasets available in recognized repositories where feasible.
  • Provide data availability statements.
  • Data confidentiality, ethical approvals, and privacy considerations must be respected.

GENDER, LANGUAGE, & RACIAL INCLUSION POLICY

  • AHR is committed to inclusive, respectful, and non-discriminatory scholarship.
  • Authors should use inclusive language.
  • Gender, racial, and cultural bias should be avoided.

Research involving human subjects must demonstrate ethical sensitivity and respect for diversity.