Peer Reviewer Process
Via Salutis: Journal of Wesleyan-Arminian Studies employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of every manuscript. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
1. Peer Review Workflow
A. Manuscript Submission
- Authors submit their manuscripts through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
- The editorial team performs an initial screening to verify the manuscript's compliance with the journal's scope, formatting requirements, and submission completeness.
- All submissions are screened for plagiarism using plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin or iThenticate.
- Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to the peer review stage.
B. Reviewer Assignment
- Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
- Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and publication record.
- Reviewer assignments are made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Section Editor.
C. Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Originality and scholarly contribution.
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
- Soundness of the research methodology.
- Quality of data, analysis, and discussion.
- Relevance and currency of references.
- Clarity, organization, and language quality.
Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations through the OJS platform.
D. Review Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
E. Author Revision
If revisions are required, authors are expected to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised version through OJS within the specified deadline.
Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
F. Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board, makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers' recommendations.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept.
- Minor Revision.
- Major Revision.
- Reject.
Authors will be notified of the final decision through the OJS platform and the journal's official email.
G. Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to:
- Copyediting.
- Layout editing.
- Proofreading.
- Online publication under the journal's Open Access policy.
2. Estimated Review Timeline
| Stage | Estimated Duration |
|---|---|
| Initial screening | 3–5 days |
| Reviewer assignment | Approximately 3 days |
| Peer review | 2–4 weeks |
| Author revision | 1–2 weeks |
| Revision evaluation | 5–7 days |
| Final decision | Approximately 2 days |
| Production and publication | 1–2 weeks |
The overall publication process typically takes approximately 6–8 weeks, depending on the quality of the manuscript and the timeliness of revisions.
3. Peer Review Policy
- The journal follows a double-blind peer review system to ensure fairness, impartiality, and academic integrity.
- Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% may be rejected or returned for revision.
- Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality and provide objective, constructive, and professional evaluations.
- Authors have the right to receive clear, transparent, and timely review reports throughout the editorial process.