Reviewers are the quiet backbone of every serious journal. At Open Christian Press, we are deeply grateful to all who serve in this role with discernment, humility, and academic rigor. This page offers clear guidance for those invited to review manuscripts across our journals. We ask reviewers to approach their work not merely as evaluators, but as stewards of truth and mentors to fellow scholars.
When agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers commit to the following:
Confidentiality: The manuscript must not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process.
Impartiality: Personal, ideological, or institutional bias should never influence the review.
Timeliness: Reviews should be submitted within the agreed timeframe (typically within 1–2 weeks), or the editor should be informed if more time is needed.
Disclosure of Conflicts: If the reviewer recognizes the author or feels unqualified due to potential conflicts, they should inform the editor immediately and recuse themselves.
Reviewers may use assistive tools (such as grammar checkers or summarizers) to help draft their review. However, they must not use generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) to produce or paraphrase entire reviews, especially in ways that compromise confidentiality or critical thought.
A typical review consists of the following sections:
a. Summary of the Manuscript
Begin with a brief, objective overview of the paper’s topic, aim, and approach. This helps confirm your understanding and frames your feedback.
b. Major Comments
Address the core issues—such as conceptual clarity, methodological soundness, logical coherence, theological integrity, and contribution to the field. This is where you assess the manuscript’s originality, insight, and academic value.
c. Minor Comments
Note smaller issues like structure, flow, unclear phrasing, inconsistent citations, or formatting lapses. These can be listed as bullet points if necessary, but always respectfully.
d. Recommendation
End with a clear recommendation using one of the following categories:
Accept without revision
Accept with revisions
Reject
The final decision rests with the editor, but your recommendation will be taken seriously.
Reviewers are invited to assess each manuscript based on the following key dimensions. While each journal may emphasize different aspects depending on its disciplinary focus, the following criteria provide a shared standard across Open Christian Press:
Originality: Does the manuscript bring fresh insight, a novel argument, or address an underexplored question? Is it free from recycled content or derivative framing?
Contribution to the Field: Does the work advance knowledge, stimulate critical debate, or fill a notable gap in the literature or theological discourse? How meaningful is its potential impact?
Completeness and Structure: Does the manuscript include all essential sections—abstract, introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusion? Is the argument logically developed and well-organized?
Depth of Research: Has the author engaged thoroughly with relevant scholarship, Scripture (where applicable), data, or case material? Is the analysis thoughtful, detailed, and grounded?
Clarity and Quality of Writing: Is the manuscript clearly written, well-structured, and easy to follow? Are technical terms used appropriately, and is the writing free from ambiguity or excessive repetition?
Rigor and Soundness: Is the methodology appropriate and well-executed? Where the paper involves theological reasoning or philosophical argument, is it internally coherent and contextually responsible?
Ethical Awareness: Are ethical issues appropriately acknowledged, especially when working with human subjects, controversial themes, or spiritually sensitive matters?
Referencing and Citation Consistency: Are sources properly cited? Has the author maintained a consistent referencing style throughout the manuscript?
These criteria should guide both your overall recommendation and your constructive feedback.
