REVIEWER GUIDELINES

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process at SEJATI aims to ensure that all published manuscripts meet high standards of scholarly quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance to the field of theological studies.

Peer review at SEJATI is intended to:

1. Evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.
2. Assess the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s focus and scope.
3. Examine the clarity, coherence, methodology, theological argumentation, and academic quality of the manuscript.
4. Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or misuse of Artificial Intelligence.
5. Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.
6. Assist editors in making fair, responsible, and academically justified editorial decisions.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

1. Accept review invitations only when they have relevant expertise.
2. Complete the review within the deadline set by the editorial team.
3. Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
4. Treat all manuscripts and review materials as confidential documents.
5. Provide objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback.
6. Evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit, not personal, institutional, denominational, or ideological preference.
7. Identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
8. Notify the editor of suspected ethical issues.
9. Avoid personal criticism of authors.
10. Refrain from using unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, institutional, or commercial benefit.

3. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether they:

1. Have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
2. Can complete the review on time.
3. Can provide a fair and objective assessment.
4. Have no conflict of interest with the author, institution, topic, or manuscript.
5. Can maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they lack expertise, cannot meet the deadline, have a conflict of interest, or feel unable to evaluate the manuscript fairly.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting or continuing a review. Conflicts of interest may include personal, academic, institutional, financial, professional, theological, denominational, or ideological factors that may influence the reviewer’s judgment.

Examples of conflict of interest include:

1. Personal relationship with the author.
2. Recent collaboration or co-authorship with the author.
3. Employment at the same institution as the author.
4. Academic rivalry or competition.
5. Financial or professional interest related to the manuscript.
6. Strong theological, denominational, or doctrinal bias that may prevent objective evaluation.
7. Prior knowledge of the manuscript that compromises the blind review process.

If a conflict of interest becomes apparent after the review has begun, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor.

5. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, author identities, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research materials.

Reviewers must not:

1. Share the manuscript with anyone without permission from the editor.
2. Discuss the manuscript with colleagues, students, assistants, or third parties.
3. Contact the author directly.
4. Reveal their identity during a blind review process.
5. Use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal benefit.
6. Upload the manuscript or any part of it to external platforms, including AI tools.
7. Use the manuscript for teaching, preaching, research, publication, or institutional purposes before publication.

6. Objectivity, Fairness, and Respect

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and respectfully. Reviews should be based on scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, theological relevance, clarity of argument, and contribution to knowledge.

Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts based on the author’s gender, ethnicity, nationality, academic rank, institutional affiliation, religious background, denominational identity, or personal theological preference.

A good review should be:

1. Fair and impartial.
2. Specific and evidence-based.
3. Constructive and respectful.
4. Academically rigorous.
5. Useful for both editors and authors.

7. Review Criteria

7.1 Relevance to Focus and Scope

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is relevant to SEJATI’s focus and scope, including theological interpretation, biblical studies, Old and New Testament studies, systematic theology, historical theology, practical theology, Christian education, pastoral theology, missiology, hermeneutics, contextual theology, and related fields.

7.2 Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript:

1. Presents original ideas, analysis, interpretation, or findings.
2. Contributes to theological scholarship.
3. Engages relevant academic discussion.
4. Offers fresh insight, contextual reflection, or critical argument.
5. Avoids merely summarizing existing literature without analysis.

7.3 Title, Abstract, and Keywords

Reviewers should assess whether:

1. The title accurately reflects the manuscript content.
2. The abstract clearly states the purpose, method, findings, and contribution.
3. The keywords are relevant and searchable.
4. The English title and abstract are clear for international readers.

7.4 Introduction and Research Problem

Reviewers should evaluate whether the introduction:

1. Clearly presents the background of the study.
2. Identifies the research problem or theological issue.
3. Explains the significance of the topic.
4. States the objective of the study.
5. Shows the research gap and contribution.

7.5 Literature Review

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

1. Uses relevant and credible scholarly literature.
2. Engages current academic sources where appropriate.
3. Critically analyzes previous studies.
4. Avoids excessive dependence on outdated or non-academic sources.
5. Includes national and international scholarship where relevant.

7.6 Methodology or Analytical Approach

Depending on the article type, the method may include biblical exegesis, theological analysis, historical analysis, literature review, qualitative research, hermeneutical analysis, contextual theological reflection, practical theology method, missiological analysis, Christian education research, pastoral research, or comparative theological analysis.

Reviewers should assess whether the method is clearly explained, appropriate to the research question, and consistently applied.

7.7 Biblical and Theological Soundness

For manuscripts involving biblical or theological interpretation, reviewers should consider whether:

1. The manuscript uses Scripture responsibly.
2. Biblical texts are interpreted according to sound exegetical principles.
3. The argument avoids proof-texting or unsupported claims.
4. The theological reasoning is coherent and academically grounded.
5. Historical, literary, cultural, and canonical contexts are considered where relevant.
6. The manuscript distinguishes between academic argument, confessional position, and personal opinion.

7.8 Structure, Argumentation, and Clarity

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

1. The manuscript has a clear thesis or central argument.
2. The argument develops logically.
3. Each section contributes to the overall purpose.
4. Claims are supported by evidence.
5. The discussion is coherent and well organized.
6. The conclusion follows from the analysis.

7.9 Sources, Citation, and References

Reviewers should assess whether:

1. References are relevant, sufficient, and credible.
2. Sources are properly cited.
3. The manuscript follows the journal’s citation style.
4. All cited works appear in the reference list.
5. All listed references are cited in the text.
6. The manuscript avoids excessive self-citation or irrelevant citation padding.

7.10 Language and Readability

Reviewers should identify major language issues that affect clarity, readability, and academic quality. Reviewers are not expected to copyedit the entire manuscript, but they may recommend language editing when necessary.

8. Research Ethics and Publication Misconduct

Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if they suspect:

1. Plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
2. Duplicate submission or redundant publication.
3. Fabrication or falsification of data.
4. Misrepresentation of sources.
5. Inaccurate or fabricated references.
6. Citation manipulation.
7. Inappropriate authorship.
8. Undisclosed conflict of interest.
9. Unethical treatment of human participants where applicable.
10. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of Artificial Intelligence.

Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently by contacting authors, institutions, or third parties. All concerns must be reported confidentially to the editor.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

9.1 Prohibited Use of AI

Reviewers are not permitted to:

1. Upload the manuscript or any part of it to public or external AI tools.
2. Upload tables, figures, references, supplementary files, reviewer forms, author responses, or editorial correspondence to AI tools.
3. Use AI tools to summarize the manuscript.
4. Use AI tools to evaluate the quality of the manuscript.
5. Use AI tools to generate peer-review comments.
6. Use AI tools to recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.
7. Use AI tools to identify weaknesses in argumentation, methodology, theology, or sources.
8. Use AI-generated text as the main substance of the review report.
9. Use AI in any way that may compromise confidentiality, copyright, privacy, or the integrity of the review process.

This restriction includes, but is not limited to, tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Perplexity, DeepSeek, or other generative AI systems, unless the editorial office has formally approved a secure, journal-controlled tool that protects confidentiality and does not train on submitted content.

9.2 Limited Permitted Use

Reviewers may use non-generative tools for basic spelling, grammar, or formatting checks only if:

1. The tool does not require uploading the manuscript.
2. The tool does not process confidential manuscript content.
3. The tool does not generate scholarly evaluation.
4. The tool does not store, reuse, or train on the reviewer’s confidential input.
5. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the final review report.

9.3 AI Disclosure by Reviewers

If a reviewer uses any permitted AI-assisted or automated tool in relation to the review process, the reviewer must disclose this to the editor.

9.4 Reviewer Accountability

Reviewers are fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, professionalism, and integrity of their review reports. AI-generated or AI-assisted output must never replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgment.

10. Detection of AI Use in Manuscripts

Reviewers may notify the editor if they observe possible signs of inappropriate or undisclosed AI use in a manuscript, including:

1. Fabricated or non-existent references.
2. False quotations or inaccurate citations.
3. Generic, repetitive, or unsupported arguments.
4. Inconsistent writing style.
5. Irrelevant literature.
6. AI-generated disclaimers accidentally left in the text.
7. Methodological claims that do not match the data or analysis.

Reviewers should not rely solely on AI-detection tools, as such tools may be inaccurate. Any concern regarding AI-generated content should be reported to the editor with specific examples.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

12. Review Report Template

Reviewers may use the following structure when preparing their review report:

13. Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting the review, reviewers should ensure that they have assessed the following:

1. Is the manuscript relevant to SEJATI’s focus and scope?
2. Is the topic original and significant?
3. Is the research problem clear?
4. Is the objective clearly stated?
5. Is the methodology or analytical approach appropriate?
6. Is the argument coherent and well supported?
7. Is the theological interpretation academically sound?
8. Are the sources relevant, credible, and sufficient?
9. Are citations and references accurate?
10. Is the manuscript well organized?
11. Is the language clear and academic?
12. Are there any ethical concerns?
13. Is there any indication of plagiarism or duplicate publication?
14. Is there any indication of inappropriate AI use?
15. Are the comments constructive and respectful?
16. Is the recommendation consistent with the comments?
17. Has confidentiality been maintained?

14. Respect for Theological Diversity

SEJATI recognizes that manuscripts may engage various theological traditions, ecclesial contexts, biblical interpretations, and doctrinal perspectives. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly quality, clarity of argument, evidence, methodology, and contribution rather than personal theological preference alone.

Reviewers should not reject a manuscript merely because it represents a different theological tradition, denominational perspective, or interpretive approach, provided that the manuscript is academically rigorous, ethically sound, and relevant to the journal’s scope.

15. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete the review within the deadline set by the editorial team. If a reviewer cannot complete the review on time, they should inform the editor as soon as possible.

Timely reviews are important for respecting authors’ work, supporting regular publication schedules, improving editorial efficiency, and maintaining the credibility of SEJATI as a scholarly journal.

16. Breach of Reviewer Ethics

A breach of reviewer ethics may include:

1. Sharing confidential manuscripts.
2. Uploading manuscripts to AI tools or third-party platforms.
3. Using manuscript content for personal benefit.
4. Contacting authors directly.
5. Revealing reviewer identity in a blind review process.
6. Providing biased, abusive, or discriminatory reviews.
7. Failing to declare conflicts of interest.
8. Deliberately delaying the review process.
9. Recommending citations for personal gain without scholarly justification.
10. Submitting AI-generated review reports.
11. Misrepresenting expertise.
12. Violating confidentiality or publication ethics.

SEJATI may take appropriate action, including removing the reviewer from the reviewer database, rejecting the review report, notifying the editorial board, or taking further ethical steps when necessary.

17. Final Statement

By accepting a review invitation from SEJATI, reviewers agree to follow these Reviewer Guidelines and uphold the principles of confidentiality, integrity, fairness, transparency, academic rigor, and ethical responsibility.

Peer review is an essential part of scholarly communication. SEJATI appreciates the time, expertise, and service of reviewers in supporting the development of high-quality theological scholarship.