Submissions

Author Guidelines

Authors are invited to make a submission to this journal. All submissions will be assessed by an editor to determine whether they meet the aims and scope of this journal. Those considered to be a good fit will be sent for peer review before determining whether they will be accepted or rejected.

Before making a submission, authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included with the submission, such as photos, documents and datasets. All authors identified on the submission must consent to be identified as an author. Where appropriate, research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee in accordance with the legal requirements of the study's country.

An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet the minimum standards of quality. Before submitting, please ensure that the study design and research argument are properly structured and articulated. The title should be concise, and the abstract should be able to stand on its own. This will increase the likelihood of reviewers agreeing to review the paper. When you're satisfied that your submission meets this standard, please follow the checklist below to prepare your submission (submission Guidelines).

Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose

The peer review process is a vital component of scholarly publishing that ensures the quality, validity, and originality of research published in the NBPA Journal for Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences. It provides an objective evaluation of manuscripts and helps authors improve their work through constructive feedback.

2. Type of Peer Review

The NBPA Journal for Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

• The identity of the reviewers is concealed from the authors.

• The identity of the authors is also concealed from the reviewers.
  This approach maintains impartiality and reduces potential bias in the evaluation process.

3. Review Process

1. Initial Screening:
   Each submission is first assessed by the Editorial Team for suitability, originality, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet basic standards may be returned or rejected before peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection:
   Qualified experts in the relevant field are invited to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest.

3. Evaluation Criteria:
   Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the basis of:

   • Originality and significance of the research

   • Clarity of objectives and methodology

   • Soundness of analysis and interpretation

   • Relevance and contribution to the field

   • Appropriateness of references and language quality

4. Review Timeline:
   Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete their review. Extensions may be granted upon request.

5. Decision Categories:
   Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial decision may be:

   • Accept

   • Minor Revision

   • Major Revision

   • Reject

6. Revision and Resubmission:
   Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewers’ comments and submit a detailed response letter indicating how each issue has been addressed.

7. Final Decision:
   The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ comments, authors’ revisions, and the journal’s editorial standards.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content for personal advantage.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional relationships with the author(s)) and decline to review if necessary.

6. Ethical Considerations

The journal adheres to the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practice will result in rejection or retraction of the manuscript.

7. Acknowledgment of Reviewers

The journal acknowledges the valuable contributions of its reviewers annually, while maintaining reviewer anonymity.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or lodge a complaint about the review process may contact the Editorial Office at nbpajournal@gmail.com. Appeals will be considered objectively and reviewed by an independent editorial member if required.

9. Transparency and Accountability

The NBPA Journal for Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences is committed to transparency in its review process and strives to maintain the highest academic integrity and fairness in editorial decisions.

Plagiarism Policy

The NBPA Journal for Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences strictly prohibits all forms of plagiarism. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are entirely original and that any sources or references used are properly cited.

All submissions are screened for plagiarism using reliable similarity detection software. Manuscripts found to contain more than 10% similarity (excluding references and standard phrases) may be returned to the author for revision or rejected outright.

If plagiarism or duplicate publication is detected after publication, the article may be retracted, and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy and originality of their work.