Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Manuscript Review Stage

Review Policy:

  1. At least two peer-reviewers review the manuscripts;
  2. Editor protects all materials submitted to the journal and all communications in this process;
  3. Editor checks for plagiarism using Ithenticate. If there is plagiarism indication, the submitted manuscript will be rejected;
  4. Manuscripts are double-blind reviewed in which reviewers  do not know the identity of the authors, and vice-versa.

A Brief Review Process:

  1. The editorial team receives manuscripts from authors;
  2. The editor-in-chief or managing editor decides whether the manuscript is rejected or accepted;
  3. The editorial team performs a pre-review;
  4. The editor-in-chief or managing editor decides whether the manuscript is rejected or passed to the next review stage;
  5. The editorial team assigns the manuscript to the reviewers to be reviewed;
  6. The reviewers send back the review sheet to the editor  included comments on the manuscripts;
  7. The editor-in-chief or managing editor makes a decision whether the manuscript is rejected, needs major or minor revision, or is accepted;
  8. The author receives confirmation.

Pre-review Process:

  1. Do the title and content of the manuscript  suit the vision and focus and scope of Verbum Christi?
  2. Does the abstract contain at least: research objectives, research methods, and results?
  3. Introduction:
    1. Does the background of the problem  relate to the title or abstract?
    2. Does the manuscript provide a literature review from other journal articles?
    3. Does the author state the research gap and novelty in the manuscript?
    4. Does the author include the organization of the manuscript?
    5.  Has the research objective been stated?
    6. Has the thesis statement been stated?
  4. Research Method:
    1. Is there any rationalization for the application of the research method?
    2. Does the author explain the data analysis process?
  5. Discussion:
    1.  Does the discussion  follow the organization of the manuscript which has described at the end of the Introduction chapter?
    2. Did the author analyze following the explanation in the Research Method chapter?
  6. Conclusion:
    1. Are the research results be able to respond the research objectives?
    2. Is the thesis stated justifiable?
  7. Is the manuscript  written scientifically? and does it have correlations between paragraphs?
  8. Does the manuscript follow the Author Guidelines and Manuscript Template?
  9. Does the manuscript indicate falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (with a maximum 25% similarity in Ithenticate of the article’s content, excluding footnotes, bibliography, and in-text citations)?
  10. Bibliography:
    1. The ratio of primary sources should compare to other sources (i.e., journal/proceedings of at least 80%);
    2. Up-to-date (i.e., from all journals in the bibliography, at least 80% sourced from scientific journals within the last 10 years);
    3. Active footnotes and bibliography link;
    4. Correspondence between footnotes and bibliography;
    5. Journal articles must be followed by Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Review Process:

  1. Is the title specific and effective?
  2. Does the abstract contain at least: research objectives, research methods, and thesis statement?
  3. Introduction:
    1. Does the author make comparisons with previous journal articles?
    2. Does the author analyze gaps and state the research novelty?
    3. Does the author state the purpose of the study?
    4. Does the author  declare the thesis statement?
    5. Does the author  put in the organization of the manuscript?
  4. Research Method:
    1. Does the author explain the reasons for using the method?
    2. Does the author  describe the steps in engaging the discussion chapter?
  5. Results and Discussion:
    1. Did the author analyze following  explanation in the Research Method chapter?
    2.  Is the research data valid?
    3. Are there analyses and logical correlations that led to the author’s argument?
    4. Is the research method appropriate and successful in achieving the research objectives?
  6. Conclusion:
    1. Does the conclusion address the research objectives?
    2. Does the conclusion  approve the thesis statement?
    3. Does the conclusion confirm the research contribution?
  7. Are the reference sources adequate, relevant, and accountable?
  8. Overall comment: Has this manuscript made a significant contribution  in developing science according to the focus and scope of Verbum Christi?

Post-review Process:

  1. Does the manuscript contain elements of ethical violations, such as plagiarism, forgery, fabrication, or are they being reviewed in other journals?
  2. Is there any part of the manuscript that not been revised according to the  reviewers’ corrections?
  3. Is it following Author Guidelines and Manuscript Templat of Verbum Christi?