Editorial Policies:



Peer Review Process

NIJAF uses a double-blind review system. The reviewers' identities remain anonymous to authors, and the reviewers are also unaware of the authors' identities. Two reviewers from outside and one editor from the journal typically involve in reviewing a submission.
Publication Frequency

NIJAF is published bi-annually (June & December). That is two (2) issues per year. 


Publication Fees

The publication fee is subject to the acceptance of the research paper. Authors are required to pay non-refundable processing of Five Thousand Naira (N5,000) only upon submission of a manuscript and a publication fee of Fifteen Thousand Naira (N15,000) after the paper has been accepted for publication. All payments should be made through the journal's bank account (details are found below). 


Bank Name:   Nigerian Journal of Accounting and Finance

                                                                             Account Number: 1014700010

                                                                             Bank Name: United Bank for Africa (UBA)

Submission Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check if their manuscripts have fully complied to NIJAF's submission guidelines (Author Guidelines) and conform to the following items before submitting, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines:


  1. The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration.

  2. The submission file is in Microsoft Word file format (.doc & .docx both are acceptable).

  3. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines

  4.  Where required, URLs for the references have been provided.

  5. All in-text citations are fully acknowledged in the reference list.



Points to Note before we accept Manuscript

Before we accept any manuscript for publication in NIJAF, we consider the following important points:


  1. Author contributions and relevance in the field, excellent in technical writing skills, and quality of the study design.

  2. Provides insight into an important issue for example, by explaining a wide variance when numbers are spread out from the mean or expected value, or by shedding light on an unsolved problem that affects a lot of people.

  3. The insight is useful to people who make decisions, particularly long-term organizational decisions or, in our particular field, family decisions. 

  4. The insight is used to develop a new framework or a new theory or advancement of an existing one.

  5. The insight stimulates new, important questions. 

  6. The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for example, the collection of data and interpreting of data). 

  7. The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions. 

  8. Interconnecting the previous work in the relevant field or from inter-disciplinary fields are made to the article's interpretations clearer. 

  9. The article tells a good story: Well written and easy to understand, the arguments are logical and not internally contradictory.



Points to Note before we Reject Manuscript


  1. The paper does not fall within the Aims and Scope: This is a common mistake. The emphasis of the manuscript is not in the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed.

  2. It fails the technical screening (Poor English grammar, style, and syntax): The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized. The article is currently under a review process in another journal. The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures. The English used is not proficient for the peer review process; the figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read. References are incomplete or very old.

  3. Insufficient/Incomplete data: It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the study’s question. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work. 

  4. Methods/Analysis data is seen to be defective: Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The design of the study instruments used, and procedures followed should clear. But in some cases, it could be better to put too much information into the methods section rather than to put too little. The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field. 

  5. Over interpretation of results: Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and honest approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to increase the chances of a manuscript to be accepted. Identify possible partial and stunning variables, both during the preliminary phase of the study and the elucidation of the results. Describe the experimental results briefly.• Incomprehensible/Unsatisfactory data: Make tables and graphs easy to understand. Some editors start looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering. The language, structure, or figures are very poor that the merit can't be analyzed. Have a native English speaker to read and assess the quality of the paper. 

  6. Conclusions not supported by data: Make sure your conclusions are not overemphasized, are supported, and answer the study’s query. Make sure to contribute alternative clarification, and do not simply restate the results. The conclusions should not ignore large portions of the literature. 

  7. Simply a small extension of a different paper, inaccurate literature: Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to the study. Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clear but the larger part of a study is chopped to make a possible number of articles. 

  8. Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address the reviewer’s suggestions: Taking the reviewers’ suggestions into account, revising your manuscript will always result in a better manuscript for publishing. If the editor suggests evaluating a revision, it means the manuscript may be publishable if the reviewers’ concerns could be addressed satisfactorily.