The reviewing standard of JRFM is double-blind. Submissions are first reviewed by the journal manager in order to ensure that they formally correspond to the style guide 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 (double-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 for review and will be forwarded to the reviewer in order to ensure that all requests for revision were satisfactorily addressed; otherwise, the article may be rejected.
As a peer-reviewer, please consider the JRFM Guidelines for Peer-reviewers before writing your review.
If you are interested in being a reviewer for JRFM, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org, describing your qualifications and your interests. The editors will contact you.
Detailed Description of the Review Process
Reviewing for JRFM
Only original articles not under review elsewhere are considered for publication. The submitted articles are reviewed first by the responsible issue editors and then forwarded for a formal, double-blind peer review by members of the editorial or advisory board or other experts in the relevant field.
Reviewers evaluate the articles, taking into account whether they are submitted to the thematic section (and its call for papers) or to the open section, 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 for review and will be forwarded to the reviewer to ensure that all requests for revision were satisfactorily addressed; otherwise, the article may be rejected.
Writing the Review
Reviewers are kindly asked to provide the editors with their evaluation of and comments on the articles. However, reviews should also provide feedback to the authors on how they can strengthen their articles. Therefore, the review should consider the following questions:
- Are the article and its topic relevant?
- Does the article offer an innovative, substantial contribution to the field of religion, film and media?
- Are the methodological and theoretical aspects of the article consistent with the questions it deals with?
- Does it offer a convincing argument?
- Which are the main positive aspects of the article?
- Which are the problematic aspects of the article?
- What are your suggestions for revisions (if needed)?
- Are there other crucial aspects that may be worth of particular attention?
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 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, the identities of both authors and reviewers are hidden throughout the process.
As a matter of policy, any relevant comments intended for the authors are communicated to them in an anonymized form. Reviewers are kindly asked to avoid statements that may cause needless offense and to state their opinion in an appreciative, constructive way. The rejection of an article should be followed by suggestions for improvement and encouragement for future submission.