Peer Review Process

The Journal of Divine Message Research (JDMR) uses a rigorous double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation. This guarantees impartiality and fairness in the assessment of every manuscript, whether it was prepared in the Divine Message Research platform or submitted directly.

1. Selection of Reviewers

  • Registration and expertise: prospective reviewers register with the journal and provide their academic profile or CV. The editor evaluates their expertise in the relevant field before confirming them as reviewers.
  • Criteria: reviewers are selected for their academic qualifications, research experience and expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, including, where needed, the primary languages of the texts under study (Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic).
  • Independence: reviewers are experts who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff, and must have no conflict of interest with the authors.

2. Internal Review Process

  • Preliminary assessment: when a manuscript arrives, an editor first checks whether it fits the journal’s focus on Common Message Studies and meets minimum standards of quality. Manuscripts that do not may be declined at this stage. Others proceed to peer review.
  • Blind review: the manuscript is anonymized and assigned to reviewers through the journal’s online system. Each reviewer evaluates it against the criteria below and provides a detailed report.

3. Criteria for Reviewers

Reviewers assess the manuscript on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to Common Message Studies: the central argument concerns a message shared across scriptural corpora, or its reception in the exegetical traditions.
  • Originality: the manuscript presents original research that contributes to the field.
  • Primary-source grounding: arguments rest directly on the primary texts. Quotations, verse references and translations are accurate and traceable to named editions.
  • Fair treatment of each tradition: each corpus is read on its own terms, and the comparison is even-handed and free of polemic.
  • Structure: the manuscript includes the necessary sections: title, abstract, keywords, introduction, sources and method, analysis, discussion, conclusion and references.
  • Citation and references: references are cited appropriately in the text, and the reference list is complete and accurate.
  • Clarity and quality: the manuscript is clear, concise and well written. Reviewers may recommend shortening sections or improving the discussion.
  • Language: the text is in clear, professional English. Reviewers may recommend proofreading.
  • Additional data: reviewers may point to sections that need further evidence, or to findings that could be developed.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Each reviewer gives the editor one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept and publish as is: the manuscript meets all criteria and needs no further revision.
  • Accept with minor revisions: minor changes are needed before publication.
  • Accept with major revisions: significant revision is needed, but the manuscript can be published once it is made.
  • Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

5. Communication and Revision

  • Reviewer comments: reviewers submit their comments and annotations through the online system.
  • Author feedback: the editors and peers share their reviews with the author, including the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
  • Revision: the author revises the manuscript in response, marking the changes made, and resubmits the revised version through the system.
  • Final decision: the editor reviews the revised manuscript and decides whether it is ready for publication.

6. Transparency and Policies

  • Peer review statement: all research articles and methodological notes published in the journal are peer-reviewed. Peer review means obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from experts who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff.
  • Platform-prepared papers: a paper prepared with the “Make This a Scholarly Article” tool is reviewed to exactly the same standard as any other manuscript. Use of the platform never guarantees acceptance.
  • No guarantee of acceptance: the journal does not guarantee acceptance, or a very short review time. The review is thorough and is designed to ensure high-quality scholarship.
  • Timeliness: we aim to complete the review promptly, but the duration depends on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.

7. Publication of the Reviewed Paper

  • Final approval: once the editor approves the manuscript, it goes to production and is published.
  • Open Access: published articles are freely available to everyone, without fees for authors or readers.

Take Part as a Reviewer

Scholars of scripture, exegesis and comparative religion are welcome to join the journal as reviewers. To offer your expertise, contact the editorial office at [email protected].