6 comments on “Faculty Journal

  1. Ola says:

    It’s interesting reading this.

    I wish the current editorial team of JER more power to their elbows.

    I think it is necessary the authors of the articles in the e-journal sign Transfer of Copyright to the Editorial Board before e-payment platform is activated else, they will be expecting payment for reading and downloading their articles.

    • oafak says:

      Thanks for the above comments, Ola. As at now, we are working at increasing the impact factor of the journal and trying to increase the number of “hits” at the journal site. Once this becomes substantial we will meet with the editorial teams and work out a business model for the journal. Such a model will be mindful of your suggestions above. As you can see, we have carried the relevant issues far beyond the pedestrian level. It is advisable that those who are genuinely interested in the journal also raise their game!

  2. High Chief AKANO says:

    Well, I think we are closing the gap between us and the developed world. If this huge success could be achieved within this short period, it means that sky is our beginning for the things to come. I was surprise to download the papers I published in JER from my sitting.

    However, the issue of e-payment should be given urgent attention, though the last paper I sent there, every correspondence was done electronically. KUDOS to the team.

  3. SO Adetona says:

    Sir, I have gone through your write-up and found it very interesting and correct. Notwithstanding, there is need to throw more light to some areas.

    As an insider, I will like to say that the production of JER is not slow at all. It should be pointed out here that there are many factors that affect the non-regularities of the JER. Some of these are:

    • Most of our reviewers take too much time to review most of the manuscripts we sent to them. In order to maintain high quality, it is a sine qua non anywhere that a paper has to pass through peer-reviewing process before it can be considered for publication in any Journal around the globe.
    • The editorial board normally sends the reviewed manuscripts to corresponding authors. Most of our corresponding authors do not send the corrected versions of their manuscripts to the editorial board on time. For instance, as at time of writing this piece, fifteen (15) manuscripts are with various authors which are yet to be received for onward galley-proof preparation. You can now see the cause of the delay!
    • The board also takes it as its duty to send galley-proofs of the accepted manuscripts to concerned authors. Many of the galley-proofs are also yet to be returned by various authors too. This is another problem that causes “hold-up”.
    • About 20%t of the manuscripts received and peer-reviewed are normally rejected. This is another bottle-neck to the regularity of the JER. Therefore, the board cannot trade high quality for regularity.
    • To go to press, the board requires at least eight (8) good, peer-reviewed, and galley-proofed papers. As at the time of writing this piece, only two (2) articles satisfy the abovementioned conditions; therefore, we cannot go to press.

    The current editorial board under the current Dean believes in qualities and not regularities.

    • oafak says:

      Hello Dr Adetona,
      I thank you for your comment as an insider in the editorial board of the Faculty Journal. I disagree with you however that you need to wait for the other papers before you can put what has already completed your editorial process. Just as you have papers and volumes in archives, it is possible for you to have a section on forthcoming issues. These papers will now be collected together when you want to create the next volume.

      • SO Adetona says:

        Sir,

        Necessary arrangement will be made with the web administrator to upload the already galley-proofed articles as online first.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *