PEER REVIEW PROCESS

JOSAPRAT (Journal of Spirituality and Practical Theology) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to maintain the quality, originality, and academic integrity of the articles we publish. These guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in providing constructive and fair assessments of the manuscripts they evaluate.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • The identities of authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from the authors. This ensures an unbiased and objective evaluation process.

  • Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript purely based on its academic quality, without regard to the author's identity or institutional affiliation.

2. Reviewer Selection

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise in the subject matter, qualifications, and prior experience in reviewing scholarly work.

  • If there is a significant discrepancy in the recommendations of the initial reviewers, or if a more specialized assessment is required, a third reviewer may be invited to provide an additional evaluation.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following key criteria:

  • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s Focus and Scope? Is it relevant to the field of spirituality and practical theology?

  • Originality and Novelty: Is the research innovative? Does it offer new insights or perspectives that contribute to the field of Christian spirituality or practical theology?

  • Theological Depth and Practical Relevance: Does the manuscript demonstrate a solid theological foundation? Does it offer practical insights that are applicable to ministry or church life?

  • Methodological Soundness: Are the research methods used appropriate and clearly explained? Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?

  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript clearly written? Is the argument presented in a logical and coherent manner? Is the manuscript well-organized?

  • Accuracy and Appropriateness of Citations: Are the citations and references accurate? Are they appropriately used to support the arguments and claims in the manuscript?

4. Decision Options

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept (with or without minor revisions),

  • Revise and Resubmit (major revisions required),

  • Reject (not suitable for publication).

Reviewers should provide specific, constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts, particularly in the case of revision requests.

5. Final Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, will make the final decision on the manuscript based on the reviewers' feedback. The decision will be communicated to the authors, along with anonymized reviewer comments, outlining the rationale behind the decision.

6. Revision and Resubmission

If the manuscript requires revisions:

  • Authors must submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated deadline.

  • A response letter must accompany the revised manuscript, addressing each of the reviewers' comments and explaining how the manuscript has been revised.

In the case of major revisions, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

  • All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process.

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict arises during the review process, reviewers should immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Reviewers are required to provide constructive, respectful, and unbiased feedback.

8. Plagiarism and Ethical Compliance

  • Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using tools such as Turnitin™ or iThenticate™. Manuscripts with a similarity score exceeding 20% (excluding quotations and references) will be returned to the authors or rejected.

  • Ethical Compliance: Research involving human participants must include ethical approval documentation or a clear statement confirming that the research complies with appropriate ethical standards.

9. Commitment to High Standards

JOSAPRAT is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing. The peer review process is a critical part of ensuring that only high-quality, impactful research is published. As a reviewer, your feedback plays an essential role in supporting authors and maintaining the integrity and reputation of the journal.