Research submissions normally undergo double-anonymous external peer review by two suitably qualified reviewers.
Additional review may be sought where reports materially disagree, specialist expertise is required, a conflict or integrity concern arises, or exceptional circumstances justify further assessment.
The journal may also seek additional editorial or specialist advice where necessary to assess accuracy, methodology, ethics, legal risk or research integrity.
Initial editorial screening
All submissions are subject to initial editorial screening before external review.
Screening may consider:
- fit with the journal’s scope;
- completeness and presentation;
- originality and contribution;
- source use and citation quality;
- clarity of argument;
- ethical and research-integrity concerns;
- authorship and disclosure requirements;
- permissions and third-party material;
- potential duplicate or simultaneous submission;
- and any significant legal or publication concerns.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, incomplete, insufficiently developed or affected by serious ethical, integrity or legal concerns may be declined without external review.
Reviewer assessment
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s:
- argument and contribution;
- engagement with relevant scholarship;
- methods and evidence where applicable;
- accuracy and source use;
- clarity and organization;
- originality;
- ethical and research-integrity considerations;
- and revisions necessary for publication.
Reviewer reports are advisory. A reviewer recommendation does not itself constitute acceptance or rejection.
Editorial decisions
The handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and relevant journal policies when making an editorial decision.
Decisions may include:
- accept;
- accept subject to editorial corrections;
- minor revision;
- major revision;
- revise and resubmit;
- or decline.
The Editor may request further clarification, evidence, references, permissions, declarations or revision before making a final decision.
A manuscript may be declined even where one or more reviewers recommend acceptance if significant concerns remain regarding accuracy, originality, ethics, legal risk, research integrity, journal scope or scholarly quality.
Likewise, a manuscript is not automatically rejected merely because one reviewer recommends rejection; the handling editor considers the reports and evidence as a whole.
Revisions and further review
Authors asked to revise should normally provide a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining the changes made or the reasons a recommendation has not been adopted.
Revised manuscripts may be:
- assessed editorially;
- returned to the original reviewers;
- sent to additional reviewers;
- or declined where significant concerns remain unresolved.
A request for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not disclose, distribute, reproduce or use unpublished manuscripts, arguments, data, ideas or other confidential material for personal, professional or competitive advantage.
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors where double-anonymous review applies, and author identities should not be disclosed to reviewers during the anonymous review process where reasonably practicable.
Confidential reviewer comments and internal editorial correspondence are not normally published.
Conflicts of interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect impartial assessment.
Where an appropriate conflict exists, another reviewer or handling editor should be appointed.
Reviewer use of AI and external tools
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or substantial unpublished manuscript content into public generative-AI systems or other external services where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, copyright or research integrity.
Any permitted use of digital tools must preserve reviewer confidentiality and does not remove the reviewer’s responsibility for the substance and accuracy of the review.
Editorial conflicts and editor-authored submissions
An editor’s own manuscript must be handled independently.
The author-editor must not select their own reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities where anonymity applies, influence reviewer reports or make the final publication decision.
Where another member of the editorial or advisory structure has a relevant conflict of interest, the manuscript should be assigned to an appropriate independent handling editor.
Other contribution types
Book reviews, theological reflections, practitioner contributions, ministry case studies and other non-research material must be clearly identified by contribution type.
Such contributions may undergo editorial assessment and, where appropriate, specialist or external review.
They must not be described or presented as having completed the journal’s standard research peer-review procedure unless they actually underwent that procedure.
Review timing
FCT aims to conduct review and editorial assessment within a reasonable period, but review times may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements and other editorial circumstances.
The journal does not guarantee a particular decision date or publication date unless expressly agreed in writing.
Integrity concerns during or after review
If concerns arise at any stage regarding plagiarism, fabricated material, duplicate publication, authorship, undisclosed conflicts, permissions, ethics, legal risk or research integrity, the journal may pause review, request clarification, seek additional assessment, decline the manuscript or take other action consistent with its Publication Ethics policy.
Review history and previously published material
This policy describes FCT’s current review procedure.
It does not retrospectively certify that previously published contributions underwent a particular number or type of reviews unless that review history is documented.