Peer Review

This journal operates under a double-blind peer-review model: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process. If a preprint of the manuscript has been posted, the author’s anonymity cannot be fully ensured. Papers will be sent for review only if the Editor-in-Chief determines that they meet the appropriate quality and relevance requirements. In this initial assessment, the editors also check the authors’ identities and affiliations, for example through their ORCID records, institutional pages, and publications. Each contribution sent for peer review is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in its subject who are not affiliated with the author’s institution. At least one of them is an external reviewer who does not belong to the journal’s editorial team; another reviewer may be a member of the Editorial Board or the Advisory Board, invited in a personal capacity for their expertise in the subject, who has not handled or assessed the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief does not act as a reviewer. Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editors ensure that there is no conflict of interest between authors and reviewers. Reviewers must decline an invitation if they were involved in the preparation of the manuscript, have co-authored a publication with the author in the past five years, share a current research project or grant with the author, have a close personal or professional relationship with the author, have supervised the author’s doctoral work, or are otherwise unable to assess the manuscript impartially.

Reviewers recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. When their recommendations differ significantly, the editors may invite an additional reviewer. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewers’ reports. Reviews are not published, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed. The editors aim to reach a first decision within twelve weeks of submission. Contributions that have undergone external peer review state the dates on which they were received, revised (where applicable), and accepted, together with the date of publication; other contributions state only the date of publication. Reviewers complete their reviews in three weeks on average, and original papers are published on average twenty weeks after submission.

In-house submissions, i.e., papers authored by the editors or by members of the Editorial Board or the Advisory Board, are handled by an editor unaffiliated with the author or institution, are reviewed only by external reviewers, and are monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer-review bias. When the author is the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the Editorial Board handles the paper and takes all editorial decisions on it, including the selection of reviewers and the final decision.

Original papers undergo external peer review. Other contributions are reviewed by the editors, who may, at their discretion, also send any of them for external peer review, except editorials, texts in the Theological Heritage section, and documents. The list of sections in the Editorial Policies states how the contributions of each section are reviewed.

Articles in special issues and papers presented at scholarly events are reviewed in the same way; papers presented at an event are not reviewed by other presenters at that event.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope; whether it makes an original contribution to the study of Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ theology and its wider context; whether its argument is clear, coherent, and adequately supported; whether it engages with the primary sources, including the works of Metropolitan John, and with the relevant scholarly literature; and whether its presentation, language, and references are of publishable quality.

Each review should summarize the manuscript’s argument, assess its strengths and weaknesses, offer specific suggestions for improvement, and end with a recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviews should be objective, constructive, and courteous; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Reviewers should complete their review within four weeks or inform the editors without delay if they cannot. They should decline an invitation if they lack the necessary expertise or have a conflict of interest, as described under Peer Review.

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers may not share them, use unpublished material from them, or upload them, in whole or in part, to AI tools. Reviewers should alert the editors to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, or other ethical concern.

Reviewers record their assessment in the journal’s review form in the online system; for work offline, the form can also be downloaded, as a PDF or Word file, from the guidelines shown to reviewers in the online system.

On request, the journal confirms a reviewer’s contribution in a letter; the names of reviewers are not published.