Peer Review Process

Diegesis: Jurnal Teologi Pentakosta Kharismatika implements a rigorous peer review system to ensure the academic quality, theological integrity, originality, and 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 Pentecostal-Charismatic theology, compliance with submission guidelines, and adherence to fundamental academic writing standards. This stage also assesses structural coherence, citation consistency, and basic methodological soundness. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be returned to the author for technical revision or declined before entering the peer review stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are sent to a minimum of two independent reviewers under a double-blind review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, theological contribution, relevance to Pentecostal-Charismatic studies, methodological reliability, engagement with current scholarship, and clarity of argumentation and presentation.

3. Reviewer Feedback and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed and constructive feedback designed to improve the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Based on their evaluation, they recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited adjustments before it can be accepted.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may undergo an additional round of review.

  • Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic standards or falls outside its scope.

4. Editorial Decision

Taking into account the reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations, the editorial team makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. Authors are formally notified of the decision and receive anonymized reviewer comments to guide any required revisions.

5. Submission of Revised Manuscript

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and resubmit the revised version within the specified timeframe. A detailed response to reviewers is typically required to clarify how each comment has been addressed.

6. Final Evaluation

The editorial team reviews the revised manuscript to ensure that all substantive concerns have been adequately resolved. If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further assessment. Once all requirements have been satisfactorily fulfilled, the manuscript proceeds to the production and publication stage.