By submitting a manuscript for publication in "Verbum Vitae", the authors consent to the review process. The review process, from the moment the author submits the text to the decision by the Editor-in-Chief, takes about 2 months.
All submitted texts are first assessed by the Editorial Team. In the case of thematic issues, the editors of these volumes carry out an additional, preliminary assessment.
The articles that qualify for the evaluation process are submitted for review to two independent reviewers who hold at least a doctoral degree.
Submitted texts are not sent to reviewers belonging to the same research institution from which the author comes, or to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the author. A conflict of interest is understood as professional dependence (professional subordination), direct scientific cooperation (in the two years preceding the year of preparation of the review), or direct personal relationships (relationship to the second degree, marriage) between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text. Reviewers are also not members of the Editorial Team (i.e. the editor-in-chief, vice editor-in-chief, and the managing editor). When the number of available specialists in a particular field of biblical, theological, or other studies is very limited, however, there may be a departure from the mentioned principles.
The principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article is maintained (double-blind peer review process).
The review must contain an unambiguous conclusion from the reviewer regarding the conditions for admitting the article to publication, or the grounds for its rejection. Reviews that do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review will not be taken into account, including those dominated by either unsupported criticism or unwarranted praise, or reviews devoid of a logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e. reviews that are definitely critical but with a positive conclusion, or vice versa.
The reviewer’s decision is limited to the following options:
The article can be published with no need for any changes.
The article can be published after implementing the Reviewer's suggested changes.
The article cannot be published in its present form. The text needs serious corrections/proofreading, as suggested by the Reviewer. After its revision, the text needs to be reviewed again and the decision regarding its publication must be made anew.
The article cannot be published and there are no real chances for its successful revision. The Reviewer must present the arguments which justify this decision.
The article could be published in a different journal. Again, the Reviewer will give the arguments which justify this decision.
The article does not bring any new insight, which is required by our journal policy. Thus, there is a serious doubt whether it should be published.
Rational and justified opinions presented in the review are binding upon the author of the reviewed article. The author is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers for corrections to the article. After the author re-submits the paper with the suggested corrections, all of the original reviewers have the right to verify the revised work.
The reviewer should notify the Editorial Team of the possible similarity between the reviewed article and any previously published texts.
The reviewer creates a review by logging in to his/her journal account and filling out an electronic form.
The reviewer should prepare a review without undue delay. Typically, the review deadline is four weeks.
Reviewers are obliged to keep all information provided by the Editorial Team confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge about the paper in any way, either in advance of its publication or after its rejection.
The decision on qualifying the text for publication (or not) is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the analysis of the comments contained in the reviews and of the final version of the article provided by the author, as well as the opinion of the section editor (or, in the case of thematic issues, of the editors of the volume).
Once a year, the Editorial Team publishes online an updated list of reviewers with whom it cooperates.
