Editorial and Peer Review

Editorial review is not merely a gatekeeping exercise. Properly conducted, it is a disciplined process for testing relevance, evidence, reasoning, method, originality and ethical integrity while treating authors fairly and preserving the independence of scholarly judgement.

Scope of this policy

This policy establishes common principles across Open Christian Press. Each journal and book programme may adopt more specific procedures appropriate to its discipline, publication type and available expertise. The specific publication page governs where it provides additional detail.

Initial editorial assessment

Every submission is first assessed for scope, basic quality, originality, completeness, ethical concerns, legal risk and readiness for review. Editors may decline a work without external review where it is clearly outside scope, insufficiently developed, methodologically untenable, duplicative, improperly presented or inconsistent with essential publication requirements.

An editorial decline is not necessarily a judgement that the topic lacks value. It may reflect fit, capacity, audience, timing or the need for substantial redevelopment before formal review.

Journal peer review

Most Open Christian Press journals use double-anonymised review (double blind review), in which author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another as far as practicable. Some submissions may require a different approach because identity cannot reasonably be concealed, the field is very small or specialist expertise is limited. The journal should disclose its applicable model.

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to one or more independent subject experts. Additional reviewers may be appointed for interdisciplinary, methodological, statistical, theological or ethical assessment.

Book and monograph review

Scholarly monographs and scholarly edited volumes are ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent experts. Review may occur at proposal stage, manuscript stage or both. For edited collections, the Press may review the complete volume, selected chapters and the editors' quality-assurance plan.

Textbooks, professional books and Christian ministry resources may undergo pedagogical, expert, theological and editorial review appropriate to their stated purpose. Their published classification must accurately describe the review completed.

Reviewer selection and conflicts

Editors select reviewers for relevant expertise, independence, reliability and ability to provide a constructive assessment. Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their judgement. Prior disagreement with an author does not automatically create a conflict, but close collaboration, direct competition, personal relationships, financial interests or institutional dependency may do so.

Authors may identify potential conflicts or suggest reviewers, but editors retain responsibility for selection and are not bound by author requests.

Confidentiality

Unpublished submissions, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and supporting files are confidential. Editors and reviewers may use them only for the assigned evaluation and may not appropriate ideas, data, arguments or materials.

Confidential material must not be uploaded to public or consumer AI systems without explicit authorisation and adequate safeguards.

Review criteria

Depending on the work, reviewers may consider:

·       Fit with the journal, book category or series

·       Importance and clarity of the question or purpose

·       Originality and contribution

·       Adequacy of theory, literature and sources

·       Appropriateness and transparency of method

·       Accuracy and proportionality of interpretation

·       Coherence of argument and organisation

·       Ethical, legal and reporting compliance

·       Quality and relevance of figures, tables or supplementary materials

·       Suitability for the intended readership

·       Required revisions and publication recommendation

Decisions

Editorial outcomes may include decline without external review, revise before review, reject, major revision, minor revision, conditional acceptance or acceptance. Acceptance remains subject to satisfactory completion of ethical, legal, metadata and production requirements.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the decision. The editor must consider the quality of the reports, conflicts, consistency with policy and the publication's responsibility to readers.

Revisions

Authors should provide a structured response explaining how each substantive comment was addressed. Respectful disagreement is permitted. Authors are not required to accept a suggestion that is factually wrong, methodologically inappropriate or inconsistent with the manuscript's legitimate purpose, but should explain their reasoning clearly.

A revised submission may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to new reviewers or decided editorially, depending on the extent and nature of the changes.

Timeliness and communication

Review depends on volunteer expertise and may be affected by manuscript complexity and reviewer availability. The Press therefore treats published timelines as indicative rather than guaranteed. Editors should communicate material delays and avoid retaining work indefinitely without progress.

Authors may request an update through the relevant platform when a submission has exceeded the stated or reasonable timeframe.

Editorial independence

Editorial decisions must not be purchased, traded or influenced by author fees, institutional prestige, personal relationships, theological favouritism, political pressure or commercial interests. Alignment with the Press's mission does not exempt a work from scholarly scrutiny.

Appeals

An appeal should identify a material factual error, policy misapplication, undisclosed conflict, procedural failure or serious misunderstanding. Disagreement with scholarly judgement alone is not usually sufficient. Appeals are considered by an editor not solely responsible for the original decision where practicable.