The article accepted by the editorial will be selected through Initial Review processes by Editorial Board. The articles will be sent to the reviewer and will go to the next selection by Peer Preview Process. After that, the articles will be returned to the authors to revise.  Reviewer Guidelines Dear Reviewer, please follow the following Guidelines

1. Please visit focus and scope of the journal before you make a review for the manuscript
2. Please check the article can be continued for review or not
3. Do not hesitate to reject the article if it does not meet the standards for review and publication
4. Please review the article until with the time has been specified
5. Please review the article to get a good results Steps for submit the report of the review:

Dear Reviewer, please follow the following steps while submitting your review reports;

1. Accept to review
2. Download the manuscript
3. Evaluate each part of the article,
4. Provide for recommendations: minor/major/rejected
5. Write your comments on the downloaded manuscript.
6. Upload the reviewed manuscript
7. Click Submit

REVIEWER GUIDELINES

As a reviewer, you will be informed by e-mail of an invitation to review the article in the journal. The e-mail will be sent with hyperlink invitation responses.

1. Clicking the hyperlink will take you to your Reviewer Account, and then you just need to follow the instructions.
2. What to remember while analyzing
3. There are a number of important points to remember for each article you review:

ETHICS

1. Plagiarism: If you have reason to suspect that an article is a significant copy of another piece of work, please let the Editor know, referencing the previous work in much detail as possible.
2. Defamation / libel: If false, unsubstantiated or emotional claims about organizations or individuals are made in the submitted article, please let the Editor know. If the article is deemed to be potentially libelous, clarification should be sought from the author.
3. Fraud: While it may be very difficult to detect if you consider the findings of an article to be falsified, please refer the matter to the Editor.

CONCIDENTIALITY

Do not reveal it to anyone: Any manuscripts obtained for review shall be considered as confidential documents. They cannot be shared or addressed with others unless otherwise approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Unpublished information or material revealed in the submitted manuscript shall not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written permission of the author. Privileged information or ideas gained through peer review must be held confidential and not used for personal gain.

Consultation with a single colleague can often be acceptable, but you should always discuss this with the Editor in advance. Many editors accept additional suggestions, but everyone else involved is still obliged to keep the review process private. If a student is referred to the review, he or she may interact directly with the Editor.

Double blind peer review

This journal operates on the basis of a double-blind peer review model and hence the respective identities of the author and the reviewer remain secret.

STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

1. Originality: Will the article say something new and important enough to warrant publication? Will that contribute to the body of knowledge? Is the research question important? In order to assess its originality and importance to the journal, it may be beneficial to view the article in the context of the larger literature reported, using resources such as the Science Web or Scopus. How does it compare to the most commonly cited or downloaded papers in the field? If the study has already been covered, forward any related references to the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Format and layout: Author must comply entirely with the requirements for the author’s guidelines, including the presentation of manuscripts. If the author has obviously failed to present the article in compliance with these criteria and the Editor has not already pointed this out in the invitation to review, you should either inform it to the Editor or mention it in your review. If the paper is especially original or interesting, the Editor may prefer to disregard the formatting issues in the peer review process and ask the author to fix them only shortly before potential acceptance; but at other times the Editor may ask the author to restructure the paper before going further.
3. Title: Is the article clearly described? Does it contain the most relevant variables or keywords (consider how you scan for research articles) and show the value of research? Does that make sense?!
4. Abstract organization: Have all of the mandatory fields been completed? Does this accurately represent the substance of the article?
5. Introduction: Does this explain what the author has hoped to accomplish and clearly express the research question? Has the author discussed all the variables of the topics? Has the author presented a review of existing research literature in order to provide a context? Is it clear how this is being questioned or expanded on? Are there any significant works that have been omitted from this?
6. Methodology: Does the author clarify precisely how the data were collected? Is the design appropriate for answering the question raised? Will the article detail the protocols to be followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in more detail? Is there ample knowledge available to you to reproduce the research? Was the sampling adequate? Have the instruments and materials been properly described? Does the article state clearly what sort of data has been recorded; has the author been correct in explaining the measurements?
7. Statistical errors: These are normal and so careful attention should be paid to them.
8. Results: This is where the author can clarify explicitly what has been found in the study. Are the findings clearly presented? You should consider the merits and appropriateness of the study of the author.
9. Discussion/Conclusion: Are the arguments in this section fair and based on the results? Are the results consistent with the expectations of the author? Are the results properly related to the other elements of the paper? Does the article endorse or refute earlier theories or other research findings? Will the author clarify how research has been applied to the body of knowledge?
10. Graphics and tables: If included, please review the material and, if necessary, make suggestions for improvement. Do the statistics and tables remind the reader of this? Is that an important part of the story? Are the figures correct in describing the data? Are they regularly presented (e.g. in the same format throughout)?
11. Language: Does the standard of English make it difficult to understand the point of the author? If this is the case, you do not need to correct the English language, but should address it as part of your analysis instead. In extreme cases, where an interesting or original contribution is undermined by poor quality of language, you can bring this to the attention of the Editor who can then advise on sub-editing services.

The following are the guiding questions for the manuscript score:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain fresh and important knowledge that is relevant for the purpose of justifying the publication?
2. Literature Relationship: Does the paper show an effective understanding of the related literature in the field and reference an acceptable selection of sources of literature? Is any significant review ignored?
3. Methodology: Is the paper's claim based on an acceptable foundation of logic, principles or other ideas? Has the study or similar intellectual work on which the paper is based been well-designed? Are the methods used appropriate? Does the method include research design, population, sample and sampling technique, instruments, validity, reliability index, procedure and method of data analysis?
4. Results: Are the results clearly described and interpreted in an acceptable manner? Are the results properly related to the other elements of the paper?
5. Implications for research, practice: Does the paper specifically describe any implication for study, practice and/or society? Does the paper fill the gap between theory and practice? How can research be used in classroom practice, teaching, public policy, research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the effect on society (influencing public perceptions, impacting the quality of life)? Are these implications in line with the results and conclusions of the paper?
6. Quality of communication: Does the paper explicitly state its case, calculated against the technical language of the filed and the anticipated awareness of the journal’s readership? Care has been taken to consistency of language and readability, such as sentence form, use of jargon, acronyms, etc.

"You are required to make comments, corrections, and observations on the author’s manuscript. Also, write your comments in the reviewer report form as well. When you email your summary to the editor, append the signature. You are then asked to make a suggestion to the editor on the next move for the publication. The author will take into account your overall recommendation. The following are the guidelines

1. requires minor refinement taking into account the comments of the reviewer
2. requires a major corrections and re-review
3. Resubmit for review
4. Rejected outrightly

Please see Feedback: if you can not make a decision about the manuscript and you need the editor to see your feedback and make a decision about the manuscript.

Need any help? Please contact the editor or send a letter to: editor@jeredajournal.com, please

1. The Article Processing Fee of $60 (soft copy only) and $75, (Hard copy for only Nigerian authors [optional]) is required to be paid only if the article has been accepted for publication.
2. After the payment of the processing fee, the manuscript is published on the current issue of the selected journal.
3. The article’s file (a pdf file) is sent to the author’s email containing the addresses of the issue, abstract’s and article’s page.