Glasul Bisericii ensures a double blinded peer-review process. The reviewers are experts in various domains of Theology (Systematics, Biblical Studies, History, Arts, Music, Homiletics, Liturgical and Pastoral Studies etc.).
Procedure for peer-review
General considerations
Texts received at the editorial office are subject to both internal (within the editorial office) and external (by reviewers outside the editorial office) review to ensure quality scientific research.
The selection of external, independent reviewers from outside the editorial board takes into account the scholarly reputation and area of expertise of the researcher and/or academic, their honesty, objectivity and professional experience. The reviewers are thus selected from among specialists with a reputation in the field, who are PhDs in the subject area. See here the list of the reviewers.
The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to the authors in order to ensure the greatest possible objectivity and independence of opinion. At the same time, the names of the author(s) will not be known to the reviewers (double-blind reviewing system).
Description of the procedure
Within one week of receiving the text, the coordinating editor will appoint an editor-in-chief and an in-house reviewer who specialises in the subject of the text to be reviewed or a related field. The Editorial Secretary shall provide the internal reviewer with the text to be reviewed (in electronic format) and a review form.
The internal reviewer ensures that the editorial conditions for publication are met, that the scientific conditions for publication are met, makes the necessary corrections in terms of language, critical apparatus and page layout in accordance with the journal’s rules, ensures that the text does not contain any elements indicating the author’s name (all elements that could reveal the author’s identity will be removed), makes recommendations for improvement, prints the text in “standard format”, completes and signs the review form.
The internal reviewer sends the electronic document containing his/her comments on the text to the editorial secretary, together with the completed standard review form.
Once the text has been evaluated by the internal reviewer, the coordinating editor, in consultation with the internal reviewer and the editorial secretary, establishes the identity of the two external reviewers and the editorial secretary sends them the text to be reviewed in electronic format (including the corrections made by the internal reviewer).
The two external reviewers will independently follow the same procedure as described for the in-house reviewer and complete the review form. The reviewers will be asked to formulate an opinion within four weeks.
Within one week of receiving all the review reports, the editorial board will decide whether to accept (possibly with some modifications) or reject the manuscript on the basis of them (one internal review report, two external review reports)[1].
Whatever the opinion of the reviewers (accepted, accepted subject to changes or rejected), within one week of receiving the review reports, the editorial secretary and the responsible editor enter the reviewers’ comments and recommendations in the electronic format of the text as a “comment” (use the track-changes function in Word). At the end of this process, the Editorial Secretary notifies the author(s) of the outcome of the review process and the decision of the Editorial Board to accept or reject the manuscript and sends the author(s) the electronic document highlighting the revisions of the three reviewers.
If the reviewers have expressed a favourable opinion[2] for publication with some changes, and this opinion has been confirmed by the Editorial Board, the Editorial Secretary will specify a deadline for entering the recommendations from the review reports and making other improvements/changes in the message accompanying the text returned to the author(s) (authors are usually advised to make the requested changes and return the final version of the text to the Editorial Secretary within two weeks). Within one week of receipt of the final version of the text, the Editorial Secretary will notify the author of the acceptance of the revised version or, where appropriate, inform the author that further improvements to the text are necessary.
If the reviewers have expressed an opinion unfavourable to publication, as confirmed by the decision of the editorial board, the editorial secretary shall inform the author(s) of the reasons for not publishing the text. The Editorial Secretary shall attach to his or her message the electronic document highlighting the comments of the three reviewers. If any of the external reviewers have made other recommendations to the author (e.g. suggested that the text be published in another journal), the Editorial Secretary will also mention this in his/her message.
Final considerations
The editorial office undertakes to complete the entire review procedure for manuscripts received for publication within four weeks of receipt of the manuscript.
The Editorial Secretary is responsible for archiving documents relating to internal and external reviews so that the completion of the review procedure can be checked in each case.
Manuscripts are not returned if they are not published.
[1] The Editorial Board takes its decision by open vote. The content and conclusions of the review reports are made public at the meeting of the editorial board.
[2] If the verdict of the reviewers is not unanimous, the editorial board will take a decision after consulting another external reviewer, an authority in the field.
