Review Policy

Internal Review (Preliminary Editorial Assessment)

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are reviewed by the managing editor with regard to the aims, scope, and editorial policy of the journal. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the journal's scope and editorial policy, or that fail to meet its editorial standards, are rejected prior to peer review. The editor's foreword, as well as the sections "Speeches and Papers," "Reviews," "Documents," "Reports," and the corrections notice block, are not subject to peer review.

Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal's requirements regarding structure and formatting are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. If an author fails to respond to the editor's request within 30 calendar days, the manuscript is considered to be no longer under consideration by the editorial office.

Manuscripts in which a significant percentage of textual borrowings is detected following a plagiarism check are returned to the authors for revision. In cases where plagiarism is identified, the article is returned to the author without the right to resubmit that article.

Following all internal checks, the author's original manuscript is forwarded for external peer review (expert evaluation).

 

External Peer Review (Expert Evaluation)

All articles submitted for publication are subject to double-blind anonymous peer review by at least two reviewers who are specialists in the scholarly field relevant to the particular article. Members of the editorial board may also serve as reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the best international peer review practices, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the requirements of this journal.

Reviewers are obliged to notify the editor and/or the editorial office as promptly as possible of any potential conflicts of interest. They are also required to observe the principle of confidentiality when working with the manuscript, including refraining from using and/or reproducing it in whole or in part in any context, as well as from disclosing information regarding the editorial office's request for review.

In preparing a review, the reviewer is required to respond "yes," "no – minor revision required," or "no – major revision required" with respect to the following criteria (as listed in the reviewer template):

  • scholarly originality;
  • logical coherence and consistency of presentation;
  • methodological soundness of the research;
  • reliability of results and validity of conclusions;
  • compliance with ethical standards of research conduct;
  • quality of the material's formatting and presentation.

Where reviewers have selected "no – minor revision required" or "no – major revision required" for any given criterion, they are required to provide reasoned commentary and explain to the authors how the article may be improved.

Editors reserve the right to withhold from the author any comments that contain a subjective assessment of the manuscript's content, offensive language, or fail to meet the established requirements and criteria set out above.

Editors serve as intermediaries in all discussions between authors and reviewers during the peer review process prior to publication. Where agreement cannot be reached, editors may invite additional reviewers.

The managing editor has the right to return a review for revision if the reviewer has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the guidelines for reviewers, or if the review contains ambiguous remarks. In cases of significant objections to a reviewer's conduct, the editor has the right to remove the reviewer from the list of persons engaged by the journal and/or to notify the reviewer's affiliated institution of their actions.

Reviewers do not carry out structural or linguistic-stylistic editing of the manuscript; however, where necessary, they draw the attention of the authors and journal editors to editorial issues in the relevant section of the review.

The decisions available to reviewers are as follows:

  • accept the article for publication without changes;
  • accept following minor revisions;
  • return to the author for major revision with the possibility of reconsideration;
  • reject (the article is rejected without the right to resubmit the same article if it has serious deficiencies and/or does not contain original scholarly findings).

If an article may be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the author or authors together with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improvement, as well as any editorial recommendations where applicable.

The author resubmits the revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers' remarks. All changes must be highlighted within the text of the article.

The managing editor either directly assesses the quality of the revisions or forwards the article to the reviewers for re-evaluation. In the event of a second round of peer review, the reviewer may be asked to assess the revised version of the manuscript in light of the recommendations provided during the first round of review.

Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and with substantiation, and to be courteous and constructive in their recommendations.

The author must respond to all reviewer comments in accordance with the points raised in the review.

The total period of peer review may not exceed three months from the date of the article's receipt by the reviewer.

The journal permits a maximum of two rounds of peer review for any manuscript.

The editorial office takes the reviewers' comments into consideration; however, the final decision regarding the publication of an article rests with the journal's editorial board.

 

Resolution of Disputed Cases

In the event of disagreement between an author and a reviewer, the manuscript is referred to a working group of the journal's editorial board.

The working group carries out a detailed analysis of the positions of both parties and may commission additional external peer review.

Should the author be unable or unwilling to address the reviewers' substantiated remarks, the journal's working group reserves the right to reject the article.

The author is duly informed of the decision reached.

 

Editorial Processing of Accepted Articles

An article that has received a favourable decision and been accepted for publication is forwarded to the managing editor for editorial and stylistic processing.

Minor stylistic corrections that do not affect the content may be introduced by the editor without prior agreement with the author.

Upon the author's request, the editorial office provides a layout of the article incorporating all revisions made.

Where stylistic changes are numerous or may alter the content, agreement with the author is mandatory.

 

Preparation of Each Journal Issue

Articles that have completed all stages of peer review and editorial processing are included in the next issue of the journal.

The final layout of the issue is signed off by the editor-in-chief and recommended for print by decision of the Academic Council of the Kyiv Orthodox Theological Academy.

 

Conflicts of Interest

All parties involved in the process – editors, reviewers, and authors – are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest.

Should a conflict of interest be identified, the reviewer or editor concerned is recused from involvement with the manuscript.

 

Final Provisions

The double-blind peer review policy may be updated periodically.

All authors, reviewers, and editors who interact with the journal are obliged to familiarise themselves with this Policy and to comply with its provisions.

In cases of potential violations, the editorial office acts in accordance with the recommended procedures of COPE.