PEER RIVIEW PROCESS

1. Every manuscript submitted to Sabda: Jurnal Teologi Kristen must adhere to the journal's focus and scope as well as the author guidelines established by the editorial team. The manuscript must meet scientific feasibility standards, possess elements of novelty, and provide significant contributions to the development of Christian theology studies and Christian religious education, as well as related disciplines.


2. All submitted manuscripts must be free from plagiarism. Authors are advised to conduct a similarity check using plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin, before submitting the manuscript. The editor will also perform a similarity check on the manuscript using the same software.

3. The editor will conduct an initial review of the submitted manuscript to ensure its alignment with the journal's focus and scope, writing guidelines, and the provided template. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors without going thru the review process. We will not process manuscripts that do not comply with the rules established by the SABDA journal.

4. The manuscript evaluation process at Sabda: The Christian Theology Journal uses a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other. Each manuscript will be evaluated by at least two reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field of study to ensure the scientific quality of the article.

5. In the review process, reviewers assess the quality of the article, which includes the title, abstract, theoretical framework, methodology (if relevant), discussion, and conclusion. Reviewers also evaluate the level of novelty, scientific contribution to the discourse of Christian theology, as well as adherence to scientific publication ethics and academic integrity.


6. The reviewer provides a recommendation to the editor regarding the status of the manuscript, whether it is accepted, rejected, or requires minor or major revisions, accompanied by notes and constructive improvement suggestions. Reviewers are expected to provide argumentative considerations, taking into account the possibility of differing perspectives or technical expertise between reviewers and authors. If there is a difference of opinion between the reviewer and the author, the editor and chief editor will mediate to find common ground.


7. Editorial decisions are not based solely on vote counts or numerical assessments. The editor considers the strength of the arguments presented by the reviewers as well as the author's response to the review results. In the decision-making process, the editor may also consider other relevant information to maintain the quality and integrity of the journal. The primary responsibility of the editorial board is to the readers and the broader academic community.


8. In certain conditions, especially when there are differing opinions among reviewers or when the author requests clarification on the review results, the editor may seek further input from the reviewers. However, the editorial team strives to minimize the process of further consultation to ensure a fair, efficient, and professional review process for all parties involved.