Research submissions normally undergo double-anonymous external peer review by two suitably qualified reviewers. Additional review may be sought when reports materially disagree, specialist expertise is required or exceptional circumstances justify it.
Assessment and decisions
Initial editorial screening considers scope, completeness, originality, source use and ethical concerns. Suitable manuscripts proceed to review. Reviewers assess the argument, contribution, methods where relevant, engagement with scholarship, clarity and necessary revisions.
The handling editor considers the reports and decides whether to accept, request minor or major revisions, or decline the manuscript. A recommendation from a reviewer is not itself an acceptance decision. Revised submissions may be returned for further review.
Confidentiality and conflicts
Authors submit an anonymised manuscript separately from identifying information. Reviewers disclose conflicts and protect unpublished material. Reviewer identities and confidential editorial comments are not published.
An editor’s own manuscript is assigned to an independent handling editor. The author-editor does not select their own reviewers or make the decision.
Other contribution types
Book reviews, practitioner reflections and ministry case studies are identified by type and may follow editorial assessment with specialist review where appropriate. They must not be represented as having completed a research-review procedure that they did not undergo.
This policy describes the journal’s review procedure. It does not retrospectively certify a particular number of reviewers for previously published contributions.