Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to RELHUM: Journal of Religion and Humanities undergo a rigorous editorial and peer review process to ensure academic quality, scholarly integrity, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

RELHUM adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach is intended to maintain fairness, minimize potential bias, and support independent scholarly evaluation.

The editorial workflow is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of academic publishing and publication ethics.

Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Board.

This preliminary evaluation aims to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal’s basic publication requirements before entering external review.

The assessment includes:

  1. alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
  2. compliance with author guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements;
  3. originality and academic contribution;
  4. methodological soundness and scholarly relevance;
  5. clarity of presentation and overall manuscript quality;
  6. adherence to publication ethics and editorial policies;
  7. similarity assessment according to journal standards.

Based on this assessment, the editorial office may decide to:

  1. proceed to external peer review;
  2. request technical or preliminary revisions; or
  3. decline the submission at the editorial stage (desk rejection).

Manuscripts that do not sufficiently align with the journal’s standards may not proceed to peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening stage will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area.

The review process is conducted under the Double-Blind Peer Review model to preserve confidentiality and maintain impartial assessment.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts based on several scholarly criteria, including:

  1. originality and significance of the contribution;
  2. theoretical and conceptual foundation;
  3. methodological appropriateness;
  4. analytical rigor and interpretation;
  5. coherence of arguments and conclusions;
  6. adequacy and currency of references;
  7. clarity, organization, and academic writing quality.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to support manuscript improvement and scholarly development.

The average review period is approximately four weeks, although processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Editorial Decision

Following completion of the review process, the Editorial Board evaluates reviewer reports and determines the editorial outcome.

Possible decisions include:

  1. Accepted
    The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision.
  2. Minor Revision
    The manuscript is accepted subject to limited revisions that do not substantially affect its scholarly content.
  3. Major Revision
    Substantive revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.
  4. Rejected
    The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication due to concerns regarding scientific quality, relevance, originality, or other editorial considerations.

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editorial Board.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to revise the manuscript carefully and address all reviewer comments in a systematic manner.

Where applicable, authors may be requested to submit:

  1. a revised manuscript; and
  2. a detailed response to reviewers outlining changes made.

Revision timelines are as follows:

  1. Major Revision: up to 6 weeks;
  2. Minor Revision: up to 4 weeks.

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review if deemed necessary by the editor.

Copyediting and Language Quality Control

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, including copyediting and language review.

This stage is intended to:

  1. improve readability and linguistic quality;
  2. ensure consistency in academic style and formatting;
  3. standardize references and citation formats; and
  4. prepare the manuscript for final publication.

Editorial revisions at this stage do not alter the scientific content of the manuscript.

Proofing and Author Confirmation

Prior to publication, authors will receive the final formatted version (galley proof) for review and approval.

Authors are responsible for carefully checking:

  1. typographical errors;
  2. author information;
  3. formatting consistency; and
  4. minor technical corrections.

Substantive changes to the manuscript content are generally not permitted at this stage.

Publication

After final approval is received from the author, the manuscript will proceed to publication.

Published articles will be made available through the journal platform and archived as part of the journal’s official scholarly record in accordance with the journal publication schedule.