Peer Review Process

Ars Sacra: Journal of Art and Religion upholds a rigorous peer review process to ensure the scholarly quality, integrity, and relevance of all published submissions. The journal employs a double-blind peer review model, in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by subject experts based on its academic merit, originality, and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.

1. Preliminary Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. This stage evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic quality standards. Manuscripts that are out of scope, poorly structured, or contain more than 20% similarity (as detected by a plagiarism checker) will be rejected outright.

The editorial team also verifies adherence to formatting guidelines and proper citation style. Submissions that do not comply with these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before proceeding to peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

The editorial board appoints a minimum of two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are carefully selected to ensure they are from institutions different from the authors and have no conflict of interest.

All reviews are conducted anonymously. Invitations to review are typically extended within four weeks of submission.

3. Evaluation by Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its scholarly contribution, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to art, religion, and spirituality studies. Reviewers are given two weeks to complete their assessment and provide constructive feedback. Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial team, makes the final decision on each manuscript. This decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s quality, and compliance with the journal’s standards. If reviewer opinions diverge significantly, a third reviewer may be invited to provide an additional assessment.

Authors are informed of the decision along with anonymized reviewer comments. The editorial team aims to issue the first decision within one month of submission and to publish accepted manuscripts within 4 to 8 weeks of final acceptance.

5. Revision Stage

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors must submit a revised version along with a detailed response letter addressing the reviewers’ comments. The timeline for revisions is:

Two weeks for minor revisions
Four weeks for major revisions

Manuscripts that undergo major revisions will be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

6. Final Steps to Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted, authors are required to submit the final version for copyediting, layout, and proofreading. The editorial team coordinates these final steps to ensure the article is prepared for publication according to the journal’s style and format.