Peer Review Policy

"The Study of Religion and History" (TSRH) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and impactful scholarship that contributes significantly to the interdisciplinary field of religious studies and history. To ensure the quality of our publications, we employ a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing the peer review process for TSRH.

2. Scope of Review

All submissions to TSRH, including research articles, book reviews, and forum pieces, undergo peer review. Articles are reviewed based on the following criteria:

• Originality: Does the article make a new and significant contribution to the field?
• Methodology: Is the research methodology sound and appropriate for the topic?
• Analysis: Is the analysis rigorous and well-supported by evidence?
• Clarity and coherence: Is the article well-written, organized, and easy to understand?
• Significance: Is the article relevant to a broad audience of scholars and students?

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected from a pool of qualified scholars with expertise in the relevant area of study. The editors consider the following factors when selecting reviewers:

• Expertise in the specific topic of the article
• Publication record in relevant journals
• Familiarity with the methodological approaches used in the article
• Ability to provide constructive and objective feedback

4. Double-Blind Review Process

TSRH employs a double-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of both the author(s) and the reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the review process. This helps to ensure that the reviews are based solely on the merits of the work and not on the author's reputation or personal characteristics.

• Author anonymity: Authors are required to remove any identifying information from their manuscripts, including their names, affiliations, and acknowledgments.
• Reviewer anonymity: Reviewers are not provided with the author's identity and are asked not to attempt to identify the author.

5. Review Process

Each article is typically reviewed by two independent reviewers. The reviewers are provided with the following:

• The manuscript
• A review form
• Author guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed feedback on the article, including:

• Strengths and weaknesses
• Suggestions for improvement
• Recommendations for acceptance, rejection, or revision

6. Editorial Decision

The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or revise an article based on the following:

• The recommendations of the reviewers
• The editor's own assessment of the article
• The overall quality and fit of the article for TSRH

The editor-in-chief may consult with other members of the editorial board before making a decision.

7. Author Communication

Authors will be notified of the editor's decision, along with any feedback from the reviewers. If the article is rejected, the author will be provided with constructive feedback to help them improve their work. If the article is accepted for revision, the author will be provided with specific instructions on how to revise the manuscript.

8. Ethical Guidelines

All reviewers and authors are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. This includes avoiding plagiarism, copyright infringement, and conflicts of interest.

9. Amendments

This peer review policy may be amended from time to time to reflect changes in best practices or the needs of the journal.