Focus and Scope

The African Review of Physics (ARP) is a free, on-line, peer reviewed, international journal that publishes reviews, research articles, and brief communications in all branches of experimental and theoretical physics with an emphasis on originality and relevance to the basic understanding of contemporary physics and related interdisciplinary fields. An important feature is the publication of invited review articles of interdisciplinary nature in established and newly emerging areas of physics. For example, bio-nanotechnology is one such interdisciplinary field of research. In addition, the African Review of Physics publishes timely Special Issues dedicated to a rapidly developing field of physics and proceedings of conferences held in Africa. The main objective of this journal is to bridge the knowledge gap resulting from the inability of a large number of academic institutions in African countries to subscribe to leading physics periodicals. The high quality of scientific material being published by this Journal is overseen by an international advisory board of editors consisting of eminent scientists, including a Nobel laureate. To summarize, the ARP will focus on the following: - Reviews (both by invitation and submission). - Research articles and brief communications. - Reports on activities related to physics taking place in Africa. - Proceedings of international conferences in physics and related fields hosted in Africa. - Advertising scholarships, awards and research funds that are made available to African researchers.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Communications

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Review Guidelines for Editors. The review process of scientific papers requires a coordinator, such as an editor (or editors) charged with ensuring the high quality of all manuscripts accepted for publication, and with maintaining the objectivity and confidentiality of the whole editorial process. The editors of the African Review of Physics are the Editor, the Associate Editors, and the International Board of Editors. The editor has ultimate responsibility for the Journal and to make final decisions on manuscripts. It is his sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. The primary task of the editors, which include the editor, associate editors, and the board of editors, is to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated primarily with regard to the importance and quality of the paper submitted, and its relevance to the journal's broad objectives. Initial Screening: The editor may reject a manuscript without additional opinions if it is deemed to be (a) inappropriate as to subject matter; (b) of poor quality; or (c) of inadequate significance. This decision, based primarily on the manuscript as submitted, also may take into account the editor's assessment of the possible impact of revisions by the author. Both the editor and at least one associate editor must have read the submitted paper for the purpose of initial screening. Conflict of Interest: In the case of a conflict of interest, the editor may request that the authors include a statement to this effect in the manuscript before it can be reviewed or accepted for publication. Authors may request that the editor not involve certain individuals in the review of their manuscript. There are legitimate reasons for authors to request that particular individuals not review their manuscripts. For example, the individual may be a competitor in a rapidly moving field, or may have previously demonstrated an inappropriate bias against the author. Editors should generally grant the request of an author, who asks that an individual be excluded from the review of a particular manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if the editor believes that their expertise is critical to the fair consideration of the manuscript. If the editor does use a reviewer despite an author's objection, the editor should seek the opinions of additional reviewers. Authors may indicate in their cover letter that the manuscript should be returned to them rather than be reviewed by a particular individual. The editor should respect this request. Except in the case of signed editorials, editorial responsibility for any manuscript with which the editor has a potential conflict of interest should be delegated to another qualified person, such as another member of the editorial board or a reviewer of ARP. This may be necessary, for example, when a manuscript under review is authored by the editor or someone at the editor's institution or a present student or collaborator who is closely related to the current or past research of an editor; or may be related to an editor's financial interests. Consultation with the Board: For manuscripts that pass this initial screening, responsible and prudent exercise of editorial responsibilities normally requires that the editor seek advice from the member of the Board of Editors to the appropriateness of the manuscript for publication. Review Process: A board member may recommend the paper for publication, or may seek additional opinion and select a reviewer(s) who possess appropriate expertise. It is the responsibility of the editors to ensure that the reviewers understand their responsibilities, including those regarding confidentiality and unbiased review. Editors should urge reviewers to be objective in their evaluation of a manuscript. Revision of papers: The editors should give an opportunity to the author(s) to respond to criticisms and to prepare a revised version. In this case, the editor should permit the authors a reasonable but limited period of time in which to do so. However, editors are under no obligation to reconsider a manuscript they have rejected. Appropriate Bibliography: Editors should hold authors to a high standard with regard to the citation of the appropriate literature, emphasizing the use of initial, peer-reviewed references whenever possible. However, the editors should not encourage authors to cite the African Review of Physics merely to enhance its reputation. Unbiased Consideration: Editors should establish a review process that minimizes bias. Science flourishes best when publication in peer reviewed journals is based solely on the quality and scientific importance of manuscripts and their relevance to the mission of those journals. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to any personal characteristic of the authors. Such irrelevant characteristics include age, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, religion, seniority, and sexual orientation. Editors should ensure that throughout the review process the intellectual independence of authors is respected and room is left for well reasoned differences in opinion. Solicitation: Editors generally should not solicit specific research manuscripts. Editors are encouraged to maintain or improve the quality of their journal by carefully reviewing submitted manuscripts and by other means such as providing a high quality format. They may also wish to make frequent announcements of the journal's mission. However, when editors solicit a particular manuscript for their journal, they jeopardize their ability to provide and to be seen as providing the objective evaluation that is the core of their responsibility. Editors may wish to solicit opinion pieces or editorials. However, they should not request submission of a particular research manuscript by a particular author, lest it be implied that the article will receive favored treatment during review. They also should never suggest that a manuscript will be accepted until the review process has been completed. Editors may, however, advertise their general interest in a type of manuscript or otherwise publicize ARP. Invited Articles: If a different editorial policy applies to any manuscripts within ARP, such as invited articles, this should be stated explicitly at a suitable place within the journal. Unless this different policy affects a large percentage of the published articles, editors also are encouraged to indicate the policy in a footnote (or below the title) to the specific article to which it applies. An invited article may or may not be peer reviewed. Editors should subject all manuscripts of a given form to the same type of review. If readers are to assume that publication indicates a manuscript has achieved the standards set by a given journal, then all articles within ARP (or a particular section of it) must receive an equivalent review. Moreover, because special credit is provided to the individual who publishes a finding first, editors should endeavor to have all manuscripts reviewed and published with the same degree of promptness. Time Factor: Editors should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed. Likewise, editors should strive to publish manuscripts in chronological order of acceptance. When publication may be delayed by some production detail-such as the failure of authors to return page proofs promptly or problems with the reproduction of a figure, the authors should be informed of this delay. Authors should never be given any assurance of a positive outcome of the review process until that process has been completed. This requires complete and thorough evaluation of the submitted manuscript (see Section 2) and usually involves input from two or more reviewers other than the editor. Rationale for Editorial Decision: Editors should provide to the authors a written rationale for editorial decisions regarding a manuscript submitted for publication. It is essential that the scientific community, including each individual author, have as much confidence in the editorial process as possible. Thus, a written explanation of an editorial decision-usually including the comments of reviewers is essential. Moreover, such feedback can play an important role in encouraging good science and manuscripts of high quality in the future. Editors should provide the corresponding author with a copy of the reviewers' comments regarding a manuscript. Before forwarding a reviewer's comments to an author, the editor may delete any inappropriately harsh language or personal attacks included in the review. The need for these deletions should be brought to the attention of the reviewer. Such language or attacks should not influence the editor's decision regarding the manuscript, although it may require the editor to seek input from an additional reviewer. Confidentiality of Editorial Process: Everyone involved in the editorial process must treat unpublished manuscripts as confidential documents. Until a manuscript is published, editors and members of their editorial staffs are expected to treat it as a privileged document. Unpublished research ideas, information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research or for the personal financial gain of an editor or anyone associated with a journal. However, if information obtained during the review of a manuscript indicates that some of the editor's own research is unlikely to be successful, it would be ethical for the editor to discontinue the research. The editor, the editor's staff, a member of the board of editors, and the journal's staff should not disclose information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought or as part of the normal editorial process. However, an editor who solicits or otherwise arranges beforehand for the submission of manuscripts may need to disclose to prospective authors the fact that a relevant manuscript by another author has been received or is in preparation. This may occur, for example, during development or production of a special issue. Public Disclosure: A limited amount of information regarding a manuscript accepted for publication may be disclosed by an editor to the public prior to publication in print. Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, several months may elapse before it is available in print or by electronic means. However, in certain cases, it may be of value to hasten the dissemination of some or all of the contents of the article. After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it is reasonable for the editor and members of the editor's staff to release information about or from the manuscript even before the manuscript appears in print. With the exception of the title and authors' names, the contents of a manuscript should not normally be disclosed prior to publication in print or electronic form without the authors' permission unless such disclosure is part of the published policy of the journal. In any such cases, it is important that information disclosed prior to publication must be made generally available. Selective and limited disclosure (e.g., to colleagues, friends, or family) is not acceptable. Error detection and Correction: Editors should correct errors in a manuscript if they are detected before publication or publish corrections if they are detected afterward. Honest errors can escape detection until after a manuscript has been submitted or even published, as when a reagent subsequently proves to be less specific than originally believed or a measuring device is later shown to have been inaccurate. Occasionally, calculations are incorrect or a critical paper is discovered late. An author, a reviewer, an editor, or any other individual may raise the possibility of error. In each case, it is imperative that the editor carefully investigates the possible error once it has been pointed out. When errors significantly alter some aspect of an article, the editor should provide a means by which a correction or retraction can be made. If someone other than an author brings an error or apparent error to an editor's attention the editor should notify all authors as soon as possible and request correction. If an error may significantly affect a manuscript or published article, then corrective action should be taken. If a manuscript has not yet been published, the errors should be corrected before publication or else publication should be delayed. If the article has been published, then a report about the error should be published as soon as possible. In the case of errors in reports that have already been published, the authors should always be given the opportunity to respond to and report the error. If the authors do not do so in a timely manner, then the editor of the journal should publish a notice of correction written by an individual of the editor's choosing. All notices of correction or retraction must be published prominently and must contain the full bibliographic reference to the original article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents page and be prominently labeled (e.g., erratum, retraction, or apologia). Misconduct: Editors should handle cases of alleged misconduct at the lowest possible organizational level, but usually must involve the institutions at which the research in question was performed. In rare instances, inaccuracies may have been deliberately included in a manuscript submitted for publication. Such inaccuracies could include misrepresenting data or failing to cite the source of a central concept and could constitute scientific misconduct. Editors may conduct an initial inquiry into apparent or alleged misconduct involving articles under consideration, in press, or published in ARP. However, editors generally do not have either the resources or the power required for significant investigatory activity. If the editor can not easily resolve cases of alleged misconduct, the editor should refer those cases to the institutions at which the research was performed, requesting that they be informed of the outcome of any investigation. If someone other than an author brings an error or apparent error to an editor's attention the editor should notify all authors as soon as possible and request correction. (Adapted form the guidelines approved and published by the Society of Neuroscience)


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...