The Computational Perspectives adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic merit of all published articles. This policy is aligned with the ethical guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Double-Blind Review Process
In the double-blind review process, both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other to ensure impartiality and fairness.
- Author Anonymity: Authors are required to remove any identifying information from their manuscript, including names, affiliations, and acknowledgments.
- Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers are not disclosed to the authors to ensure unbiased feedback.
2. Submission and Initial Screening
- Initial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial board to check for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical standards. The manuscript is also screened for plagiarism using Turnitin.
- Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without external review.
3. Selection of Reviewers
- Expert Reviewers: The editorial board assigns at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the field of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their subject matter expertise and track record in academic research.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the review process if a conflict exists.
4. Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are provided with a set of guidelines to ensure a thorough and constructive review process. They are asked to assess the manuscript on several criteria, including:
- Originality: The manuscript should present original research or ideas not published elsewhere.
- Relevance: The content should align with the journal's scope and contribute to the field of religious studies and education.
- Methodology: The research methods should be sound and appropriate for the study.
- Clarity: The manuscript should be clearly written and well-organized.
- References: All sources should be properly cited and relevant to the topic.
Reviewers provide a detailed report with recommendations, which can be one of the following:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted without any revisions.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance.
- Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes and will undergo another round of review after revisions.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
5. Revision Process
Authors receiving feedback for revisions must address all reviewer comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. A cover letter detailing the changes made in response to reviewer comments is also required.
- Minor Revisions: Reviewed by the editorial board for final approval.
- Major Revisions: May be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
6. Final Decision
The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the authors' responses to the feedback. The possible outcomes are:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
- Reject: The manuscript is rejected.
- Further Revisions: The manuscript requires additional revisions and will be re-evaluated.
7. Post-Acceptance
Accepted manuscripts go through the production process, including copy editing, typesetting, and final proofreading before publication.
8. Reviewer Recognition
Reviewers play a critical role in the peer review process, and their contributions are acknowledged through:
- Certificate of Review: Issued to reviewers upon request.
- Acknowledgment: In an annual publication of the journal’s list of reviewers.
