Peer Review Process

REAL DIDACHE: Journal of Christian Education implements a rigorous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, theological integrity, originality, and educational relevance of every article it publishes. All submitted manuscripts undergo the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine its alignment with the journal's focus and scope in Christian Religious Education and related theological studies, compliance with the journal's submission guidelines, and adherence to academic writing standards. This stage also examines the manuscript's originality, structural coherence, citation consistency, language quality, and methodological appropriateness. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the author(s) for technical revision or declined prior to the peer review process.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, scholarly contribution to Christian Religious Education and Theology, theoretical and methodological rigor, relevance to contemporary educational issues, engagement with current academic literature, clarity of argumentation, and overall quality of presentation.

3. Reviewer Feedback and Recommendations

Reviewers provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations intended to enhance the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Based on their assessment, reviewers recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial revisions.
  • Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted for publication.
  • Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be subject to an additional round of peer review.
  • Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, or falls outside the journal's aims and scope.

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial team, makes the final publication decision after carefully considering the reviewers' recommendations. Authors are notified of the editorial decision and receive anonymized reviewer comments to assist them in revising their manuscript where applicable.

5. Submission of Revised Manuscript

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. Revised submissions should address all reviewer and editor comments comprehensively and be accompanied by a Response to Reviewers document explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where appropriate, providing a justification for any recommendations not adopted.

6. Final Evaluation

The editorial team evaluates the revised manuscript to ensure that all substantive issues raised during the peer review process have been satisfactorily resolved. When necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Once all editorial and scholarly requirements have been fulfilled, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, production, and publication.