Peer Review Process

IMANENSA: Journal of Theology & Multidisciplinary Studies implements a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, objectivity, and integrity of all published articles.

1. Review Stages

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

    • All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial team to ensure conformity with the journal’s focus, scope, and author guidelines.

    • The editor reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet thematic or formatting standards.

  2. Plagiarism Check

    • Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software (such as Turnitin or iThenticate) with a similarity tolerance of no more than 20%.

    • Manuscripts containing plagiarism will be returned to the author for revision or rejected.

  3. Peer Review Process

    • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent to two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

    • The review process is conducted under a double-blind system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

    • Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, theological accuracy, academic relevance, and contribution to the field.

  4. Editorial Decision
    Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may decide to:

    • Accept without revision

    • Accept with minor revision

    • Accept with major revision

    • Reject

  5. Revision by Authors

    • Authors are required to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ comments and resubmit them within the specified timeframe.

    • Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the reviewers if necessary.

  6. Final Decision and Publication

    • The final decision for publication is made by the Editorial Board, considering the reviewers’ feedback and authors’ revisions.

    • Accepted manuscripts undergo final editing (copyediting, layout, and proofreading) before being published online.

2. Confidentiality and Review Ethics

  • The entire review process is confidential.

  • Reviewers and editors must maintain academic integrity and avoid conflicts of interest.

  • Review comments must be constructive and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.