The reviewing standard of JRFM is double-blind. The incoming articles are first reviewed by the journal manager in order to ensure that they formally correspond to the style sheet published on the journal website; then they are sent to the editors responsible for the issue for a first review focusing on content, argumentation and overall quality. In a second step, the responsible editors send the articles for a second (blind) peer review to other members of the editorial board, of the advisory board or to another expert in the respective field.
Reviewers evaluate the articles and recommend that they be published with no changes, minor changes, major changes, or be rejected. If an article is rejected, it is returned to the author for publication elsewhere. If substantial revision is required, the article may be re-submitted and will be forwarded to the reviewer in order to make sure that all requests for revision were satisfactorily addressed. If this is not the case, the article may be rejected.
To write a review, please consider the JRFM Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.
If you are interested in being a reviewer for JRFM, please send an email to email@example.com, describing your qualifications and your interests. The editors will contact you.
Detailed Description of the Review Process
Setting the Topic for an Issue
Two editors are usually responsible for an issue of JRFM. In their role as editors, they jointly agree on a relevant topic for the issue, which is published in a call for papers.
Call for Papers (CfP)
The purpose of the call is to receive contributions that will develop the topic. The call should name and explain the topic of the planned issue, outline the main focus and give some useful pointers on what is deemed necessary to ensure a successful submission. Each call is posted on the JRFM website under the section «News».
Reviewing for JRFM
Only original articles not under review elsewhere are considered for publication. The incoming articles are reviewed first by the responsible issue editors and then forwarded to formal peer review (by selected members of the editorial board and subsequently by selected members of the advisory board or by a selected third party), provided that they follow the journal style sheet.
Reviewers evaluate the articles and recommend that they be published with no changes, minor changes, major changes, or be rejected. If an article is rejected, it is returned to the author for publication elsewhere. If substantial revisions were required, the article may be re-submitted and will be forwarded to the reviewer in order to make sure that all requests for revision were satisfactorily addressed. If this is not the case, the article may be rejected.
Writing the Review
Reviewers are kindly asked to provide the editors with information and comments on the articles. However, reviews should also help to instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper. Therefore, the review should consider the following questions:
- Is the article and its argumentation relevant?
- Does it offer an innovative approach to the field of religion, film and/or media?
- Is it consistent on the theoretical and methodological level?
- What are the main positive aspects of the article?
- What are the critical aspects of the article?
- Do you have any other comments?
In addition, every review should conclude with a recommendation by the peer-reviewer. For this purpose, the reviewer can choose one of the following options:
- I recommend that the article should be published in the present form. The article is strong, innovative and contributes in original ways to the contemporary debate.
- I recommend that the article should be published with minor revisions. It provides a very good perspective on the field and can be published with minor revisions by the author. Please clearly identify the revisions you recommend and aspects that need to be improved.
- The article should be reviewed again after substantial revision. The text is promising but cannot be published in the present form. The author is invited to resubmit the article after substantial revisions. The author is strongly encouraged to consider the suggestions made by the reviewers.
- I recommend that the article is to be rejected. The article does not fit with the profile of the journal and/or does not correspond to the required criteria.
The reviewing standard of JRFM is double-blind. Therefore, identities of authors and reviewers are hidden throughout the process.
As a matter of policy, any relevant comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted in an anonymized form. Reviewers are kindly asked to avoid statements that may cause needless offense and to state their opinion in an appreciative way. The rejection of an article should be followed by encouragement for future submission.