Peer Review Process

Religious · Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Religious: Jurnal Studi Agama-Agama dan Lintas Budaya [Journal of Religious and Cross-cultural Studies] applies a double-blind peer-review process to original research articles and scholarly review articles. Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors.

Each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is evaluated by at least three independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise. Peer review supports the assessment of scholarly quality, originality, research integrity, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.

The journal follows the principles of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers . Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of human editors and are based on scholarly merit and publication ethics.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team screens each submission before external review. This assessment considers:

Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope.
The clarity of the research problem and the manuscript’s potential scholarly contribution.
Originality, methodological adequacy, and the quality of the argument and supporting evidence.
Compliance with research ethics and publication integrity requirements.
Completeness of the submission, readability, formatting, and referencing.
Compliance with the journal’s authorship, conflict-of-interest, and AI disclosure requirements.

Manuscripts outside the journal’s scope or with fundamental scholarly or ethical shortcomings may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts requiring technical corrections may be returned to the authors before further consideration.

Authors must follow the Author Guidelines and provide an anonymised manuscript. Names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information must be supplied separately or removed from the review version as appropriate. The editorial team checks the review files for identifying information.

Initial screening is normally completed within four to six weeks of receiving a complete submission, including the initial editorial queue.

2. Similarity and Originality Assessment

Manuscripts undergo similarity screening before external peer review and may be checked again after revision. The journal uses 20% overall similarity as a screening reference, rather than as an automatic determination of plagiarism.

Editors examine the matched passages, their sources, attribution, quotation practices, and the nature and extent of any overlap. References, properly attributed quotations, and standard disciplinary expressions are considered in interpreting the report.

A score above 20% requires closer editorial examination and may result in a request for explanation or revision, or rejection where substantial inappropriate overlap is established. A score below 20% does not establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

Suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or other integrity concerns are assessed on the evidence, with an opportunity for the authors to respond where appropriate.

3. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

The handling editor appoints at least three independent reviewers for each manuscript entering external peer review. Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

Demonstrated expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject, theoretical approach, or research methods.
A relevant scholarly publication record or recognised research experience.
The ability to provide a substantive, fair, and constructive assessment.
Institutional independence from the authors and the absence of conflicts that could compromise impartiality.
Availability to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers must disclose potential personal, professional, financial, intellectual, or other competing interests before accepting an invitation or as soon as such interests become apparent. Reviewers must not assess manuscripts where a conflict prevents an impartial review.

If reviewers recognise or suspect an author’s identity, they must inform the editor when this creates a potential conflict. The editor will determine whether reassignment is necessary. Reviewers who decline or cannot complete the assignment are replaced.

Reviewer appointment is normally completed within six to ten weeks after successful screening, depending on the availability of qualified reviewers and the need for further invitations or replacements.

4. Review Criteria and Evaluation

Reviewers provide a written, substantive assessment using the following criteria, applied appropriately to the article type:

Originality and contribution: the significance of the research question and the contribution to religious and cross-cultural studies.
Engagement with scholarship: the relevance, accuracy, and critical use of existing literature and theoretical perspectives.
Methodological quality: the suitability and transparency of the research design, sources, data collection, and analytical procedures.
Evidence and analysis: the adequacy of the evidence and the rigour, coherence, and credibility of the analysis.
Interpretation and conclusions: whether claims are supported and limitations and alternative explanations are appropriately considered.
Research ethics: appropriate treatment of participants, consent, confidentiality, sensitive materials, and relevant ethical approvals or explanations.
Presentation: the clarity of the abstract, organisation, language, tables or figures, and references.
Relevance: the manuscript’s fit with the journal’s scope and its value to the intended readership.

Reviews must explain the reasons for their recommendations and identify specific improvements. Reviewers should distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions and support substantive criticisms with clear reasoning.

Reviewers recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Their recommendations inform, but do not replace, the editor’s independent judgment.

Reviews are normally due within four to eight weeks after the reviewer accepts the assignment and receives the review materials. Reviewers should notify the handling editor promptly if they require an extension or cannot complete the assignment.

5. Confidentiality, Ethics, and AI Restrictions

Manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share them with others or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Any involvement of another person requires prior editorial permission and appropriate confidentiality arrangements.

Reviews must be respectful, objective, and free from discriminatory or personal remarks. Reviewers must not request irrelevant citations to increase their own or another party’s citation counts. Suspected misconduct must be reported confidentially to the editor.

AI use by reviewers is prohibited. Reviewers must not use AI to analyse, summarise, evaluate, or interpret a manuscript, or to generate, rewrite, translate, or polish review comments. They must not enter or upload manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, supplementary materials, or confidential review information into AI applications.

Editors must not use AI to replace scholarly judgment or editorial decisions. Any permitted AI assistance by authors or editors must be disclosed in accordance with the journal’s AI Policy. Human authors, reviewers, and editors retain responsibility for their respective contributions and decisions.

6. Editorial Decisions

After considering at least three completed independent reviews, the Editor-in-Chief, or an authorised editor without a conflict of interest, makes the editorial decision. Decisions consider the substance and quality of the reports, the manuscript’s scholarly merit, and compliance with publication standards. They are not determined solely by a majority vote.

Accept: the manuscript meets the journal’s standards and may proceed to production.
Minor revision: limited changes are required before a further decision.
Major revision: substantial changes and further evaluation are required.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the requirements for publication.

Where reports differ substantially or leave important issues unresolved, the editor may request clarification or obtain an additional independent review. Authors receive the decision, its principal reasons, and anonymised reviewer comments. A revision request does not guarantee acceptance.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members follow the same review standards. The author-editor is excluded from reviewer selection, access to confidential reviewer identities, and decision-making. An independent editor manages the submission.

The first decision after external review is normally issued within sixteen to twenty-eight weeks of receiving a complete submission. Manuscripts rejected during initial screening may receive a decision earlier.

7. Revisions and Re-evaluation

Authors should submit minor revisions within four weeks and major revisions within eight weeks of the decision. Authors requiring additional time should request an extension from the handling editor before the deadline.

Revised submissions must include:

A revised manuscript with changes clearly identified.
A clean version where requested.
A point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed.
A reasoned explanation for any suggestion that has not been adopted.

Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers. If an original reviewer is unavailable or additional expertise is required, a qualified replacement may be appointed. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor or returned to reviewers where necessary.

Re-review and the subsequent editorial decision are normally completed within eight to twelve weeks of receiving a complete revised submission and point-by-point response. This period includes editorial checks, reviewer reassignment, assessment, and decision-making. Replacement reviewers or additional reviews may require more time.

Further rounds of revision may be required. Authors should preserve anonymisation throughout re-review.

8. Review Timeline

The journal processes submissions according to editorial capacity, reviewer availability, and the requirements of each manuscript. The following timeframes reflect the anticipated processing periods, including time spent in the editorial and production queues.

Target timeframes for manuscript assessment
Stage	Target timeframe
Initial editorial screening	Normally within four to six weeks of receiving a complete submission, including the initial editorial queue.
Reviewer appointment	Normally within six to ten weeks after successful screening, depending on the availability of qualified reviewers and the need for further invitations or replacements.
External review	Normally within four to eight weeks after each reviewer accepts the assignment and receives the review materials. Any extension should be agreed with the handling editor.
First decision after external review	Normally within sixteen to twenty-eight weeks of receiving a complete submission. This period includes initial screening, reviewer appointment, external review, and editorial consideration of the completed reports.
Author revisions	Four weeks for minor revisions and eight weeks for major revisions from the date of the decision. Authors requiring additional time should request an extension before the deadline.
Re-review and subsequent editorial decision	Normally within eight to twelve weeks of receiving a complete revised submission and point-by-point response. This period includes editorial checks, reviewer reassignment, assessment, and the subsequent decision. Appointing replacement reviewers or obtaining additional reviews may require more time.
Publication after acceptance	Normally within twelve to twenty-four weeks after final acceptance, subject to the production queue, completion of copyediting and author proof corrections, and allocation to a scheduled issue.

These timeframes are operational targets, not guaranteed deadlines. The first-decision timeframe includes the preceding assessment stages and should not be added to them. Manuscripts rejected during initial screening may receive a decision earlier. A first decision following external review may request revisions and does not necessarily constitute final acceptance or rejection.

Processing may take longer during periods of high submission volume or where reviewer replacement, additional review, substantial revisions, or ethical inquiries are necessary. The editorial office will inform authors of significant delays and provide an updated estimate where possible.

The total time from submission to publication depends on the number of review rounds, author response times, and the publication schedule. Acceptance does not guarantee publication in a particular issue. Authors may contact the editorial office to enquire about the status of their manuscript.

9. Acceptance and Publication

Following acceptance, manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and proof checking. Authors must review proofs for accuracy and respond to editorial queries. Substantive changes at this stage require editorial approval and may require further review.

Publication is normally scheduled within twelve to twenty-four weeks after final acceptance, subject to the production queue, completion of author proof corrections, and the journal’s publication schedule.

Acceptance does not prevent the journal from investigating subsequently identified integrity concerns. Publication may be paused while such concerns are assessed.

Editorial notes and announcements are distinguished from peer-reviewed research and review articles. They undergo editorial assessment and are not represented as externally peer-reviewed unless they have completed that process.

10. Appeals and Process Integrity

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by contacting the editorial office through the journal’s Contact page. Appeals should identify the manuscript and decision and provide specific reasons and supporting evidence, such as a material factual error or a concern about the fairness of the process.

Appeals are assessed by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest. An additional independent assessment may be sought. The outcome and its reasons are communicated to the authors. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

The journal retains records of reviewer assignments, review reports, author responses, and editorial decisions in its editorial management records. Allegations of compromised peer review or other misconduct are handled with reference to relevant COPE guidance.

Peer Review Process