PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. Peer Review Model

SEJATI applies a double-blind peer-review process. In this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process. Authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

The purpose of double-blind peer review is to support fairness, objectivity, academic independence, and impartial evaluation. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, theological relevance, ethical integrity, and contribution to the field.

2. Peer Review Workflow

2.1 Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the online submission system of SEJATI. Authors must ensure that the manuscript follows the journal’s focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript template, citation style, ethical standards, and submission requirements.

2.2 Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to evaluate whether the manuscript:

1. Fits the focus and scope of SEJATI;
2. Follows the author guidelines and manuscript template;
3. Meets basic academic writing standards;
4. Contains sufficient originality and scholarly relevance;
5. Includes appropriate citations and references;
6. Does not show obvious indications of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or publication misconduct;
7. Complies with the journal’s publication ethics and AI-use policy.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to authors for technical correction or rejected without external review.

2.3 Plagiarism and Similarity Check

Manuscripts may be checked using plagiarism-detection tools or other appropriate methods to identify possible plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, or improper citation practices. Similarity results are evaluated by editors carefully and contextually. A high similarity score does not automatically indicate plagiarism, and a low similarity score does not automatically guarantee originality.

2.4 Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the topic, method, and disciplinary area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on academic competence, publication record, subject expertise, ethical reliability, and absence of conflict of interest.

2.5 Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to scholarly criteria and provide written comments for the author and confidential recommendations for the editor. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, respectful, and evidence-based feedback.

2.6 Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes an editorial decision. The final decision is based on reviewer recommendations, editorial judgment, the manuscript’s quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s scope, and contribution to theological scholarship.

2.7 Author Revision

If revision is required, authors must revise the manuscript according to reviewer and editor comments. Authors should also provide a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the required period may result in withdrawal or rejection.

2.8 Final Evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated again by the editor or returned to reviewers for further assessment. The editor will determine whether the revision adequately addresses the required changes.

2.9 Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, metadata checking, DOI preparation, proofreading, and publication. Authors may be asked to review the proof before final publication.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Relevance to the focus and scope of SEJATI;
2. Originality and contribution to theological scholarship;
3. Clarity of research problem, objective, and argument;
4. Appropriateness of methodology or analytical approach;
5. Soundness of biblical, theological, historical, practical, or contextual analysis;
6. Depth and quality of literature review;
7. Use of credible, relevant, and up-to-date sources;
8. Accuracy of citations and references;
9. Structure, coherence, and clarity of writing;
10. Ethical compliance, including plagiarism, authorship, conflict of interest, and AI disclosure;
11. Significance for academic, ecclesial, educational, or contextual theological discourse.

4. Review Timeline

SEJATI seeks to conduct peer review in a timely and responsible manner. The estimated review timeline is as follows:

1. Initial editorial screening: approximately 1–2 weeks after submission;
2. Peer review process: approximately 3–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity;
3. Revision by author: usually 2–4 weeks, depending on the extent of revision required;
4. Final editorial evaluation: approximately 1–2 weeks after revision submission;
5. Copyediting and publication preparation: according to the journal’s production schedule.

The actual timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, revision quality, and editorial workload.

5. Editorial Decisions

After the review process, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

6. Confidentiality in Peer Review

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or use manuscript content for personal, academic, professional, institutional, or commercial benefit before publication.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly. All communication between authors, reviewers, and editors must be conducted through the official journal system or editorial office.

7. Conflict of Interest in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may include personal relationships, academic collaboration, institutional affiliation, financial interest, theological or denominational bias, academic rivalry, or any situation that may affect impartial judgment.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor may assign another reviewer, replace the handling editor, or take other appropriate actions to preserve the integrity of the review process.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers are prohibited from using generative AI tools to summarize manuscripts, evaluate manuscript quality, generate review comments, identify weaknesses, or make recommendations. Any use of AI-assisted tools must not compromise confidentiality, privacy, copyright, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

Reviewers may use basic spelling or grammar tools only for their own review comments, provided that no confidential manuscript content is processed or uploaded. If any permitted AI-assisted tool is used, reviewers must disclose the use to the editor.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding, procedural error, or unfair assessment. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office with a clear explanation and supporting evidence.

The editorial team will review the appeal objectively. The Editor-in-Chief may consult additional editors or independent reviewers when necessary. The appeal decision is final.

10. Final Statement

SEJATI is committed to maintaining a peer-review process that is transparent, ethical, fair, confidential, and academically rigorous. The journal values the contributions of reviewers, editors, and authors in developing high-quality theological scholarship.