1. 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 Editorial Team, takes about 2 months.
  2. The submitted texts are first assessed by the Editorial Team.
  3. The articles qualified for the evaluation process are submitted for review by two independent reviewers with doctorate degree at least.
  4. Submitted texts are not sent to reviewers from the same research institution from which the authors come, and 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 last two years preceding the year of preparation of the review) and 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 specialists in a particular field of biblical or other studies is very limited, there may be a departure from the mentioned principles.
  5. The principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article is maintained (double-blind peer review process).
  6. The review must contain an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of admitting the article to publication or its rejection. Reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review will not be taken into account, including reviews dominated by unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, 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.
  7. 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. Text needs serious corrections/proofreading, suggested by the Reviewer. After its revision, the text need to be reviewed again and the decision regarding its publication must be made anew.
  • Article cannot be published. There are no real chances for its successful revision. Below the Reviewer gives the arguments which justify this decision.
  • The article could be published by in different journal. Below the Reviewer gives 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 by published.
  1. Rational and justified opinions presented in the review are binding for the author of the reviewed article. He/she is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the article. When the author is recommended to make corrections, all reviewers have the right to verify his/her work.
  2. The reviewer should notify the Editorial Team of the possible similarity between the reviewed article and any previously published texts.
  3. The reviewer creates a review by logging in to his/her journal account and filling out an electronic form.
  4. The reviewer should prepare a review without undue delay. Typically, the review deadline is for weeks.
  5. Reviewers are obliged to keep all information provided by the Editorial Team confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge about the paper before its publication.
  6. The decision on qualifying the text for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the analysis of the comments contained in the reviews and the final version of the article provided by the author.
  7. Once a year, the Editorial Team publishes online an updated list of reviewers with whom it cooperates.