1. Mission and Fundamental Principles of Peer Review

ETHIOINQUIRY is committed to upholding transparency, rigor, and integrity in all dimensions of the scholarly publication process. Our peer-review framework is designed to provide fair, thorough, and efficient evaluation of submitted manuscripts, ensuring that published research advances knowledge in the humanities and social sciences in Ethiopia and globally.

1.1 Editorial Independence

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Editorial Board maintain sole and independent authority over all publication decisions. Such decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope. No commercial, institutional, political, or personal influence shall be brought to bear on editorial decisions.

1.2 Core Pillars of Peer Review

• Accountability: Editors, authors, and reviewers are each responsible for fulfilling their respective roles with diligence, ensuring that the published record is accurate and ethically sound.
• Fairness and Objectivity: Manuscripts are evaluated without regard to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, national origin, or institutional affiliation.
• Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence are treated as strictly confidential until publication.
• Honesty and Integrity: All participants must act with transparency, declare potential conflicts of interest, and adhere to applicable legal and ethical standards.
• Compliance: Editorial workflows align with COPE guidelines, Scopus quality standards, and Web of Science selection criteria.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

ETHIOINQUIRY employs a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and vice versa. This mechanism minimizes the potential for bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated on scholarly merit alone.

2.1 Author Anonymization Requirements

Authors are responsible for preparing anonymous submission files. Non-compliant submissions will be returned without review. Authors must:

• Remove all author names, affiliations, and contact details from the main manuscript file.
• Ensure no identifying information appears in headers, footers, or embedded metadata (use the 'Inspect Document' function to remove file properties).
• Refer to their own previous work in the third person (e.g., 'As demonstrated by Tesfaye (2021) ...' rather than 'In our previous work...').
• Submit acknowledgements, funding statements, and conflict-of-interest declarations as a separate Title Page file that is not shared with reviewers.

2.2 Editorial Office Role

The Editorial Office conducts a final anonymization check before assigning manuscripts to editors or reviewers. If residual identifying information is identified, the manuscript is returned to the author for correction before proceeding.

3. Initial Submission Assessment and Desk Review

3.1 Technical Screening (Stage 1)

All submissions undergo an initial technical screening. Manuscripts must satisfy all of the following:

• Inclusion of a structured abstract in English (maximum 250 words).
• All references provided in Roman script.
• Submission conformance with the journal's registered ISSN/E-ISSN.
• Use of APA 7th Edition referencing style.
• Manuscript submitted in Microsoft Word (.docx) format.
• Similarity scores below 15% (Turnitin) but editors may evaluate higher scores case by case, focusing on the nature of overlaps

3.2 Desk Rejection Criteria

A manuscript will be desk-rejected without external review if it:

• Falls outside the journal's defined Aims and Scope.
• Lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, originality, or critical engagement with existing literature.
• Exhibits a similarity index beyond acceptable thresholds upon plagiarism screening.
• Fails to meet language clarity standards or structural requirements.
• Violates any ethical provision of this policy manual.
• Does not include a mandatory Ethics Statement.

4. Reviewer Selection and Diversity

4.1 Selection Principles

Reviewers are selected on the basis of substantive expertise in the manuscript's specific subject area. Editors use established scholarly databases, including Scopus Author Search, to identify qualified referees with verifiable institutional affiliations and active recent publication records.

4.2 Geographic and Institutional Diversity

ETHIOINQUIRY enforces geographic diversity in its reviewer pools. Reviewers must reflect the journal's international aims.

4.3 Minimum Reviewer Requirement

Each manuscript submitted for external review must be assessed by a minimum of two independent referees. In cases of significant disagreement, a third referee may be consulted at the discretion of the handling editor.

4.4 Author Suggestions and Exclusions

Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers and may request the exclusion of up to three individuals. The Editor's final selection is independent and binding. Suggested reviewers will not be used without independent verification of their suitability and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4.5 Reviewer Competence for Specialized Content

Manuscripts engaging deeply with Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge, or with community-based research, will be assigned at least one reviewer with demonstrated expertise in the relevant knowledge tradition or cultural context where feasible.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

5.1 Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for peer review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the content of a manuscript to any third party. This obligation persists after the review process is complete.

5.2 Constructive and Evidence-Based Feedback

Reviews must assess the manuscript's scholarly contribution, identify methodological strengths and weaknesses, note the absence of relevant literature where applicable, and avoid personal or disparaging comments about authors.

5.3 Generative AI Prohibition for Reviewers

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts, reviewer reports, or any associated correspondence into generative AI tools. This prohibition protects the proprietary and confidential nature of submitted research and constitutes a serious breach of confidentiality if violated.

5.4 Conflicts of Interest and Timeliness

Reviewers must immediately notify the editorial office if: (a) they have a competing interest related to the manuscript; (b) they are unable to meet the agreed deadline; or (c) they lack the specific expertise required. The expected review turnaround is 21 days.

6. Editorial Decision Framework

NOTE: ETHIOINQUIRY reserves the right to withdraw acceptance or retract a published article if evidence of scientific misconduct, ethical violation, or material misrepresentation emerges after an acceptance decision.