Information For Peer-Reviewers

The practice of peer review lies at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is essential to ensuring academic quality. That is why all articles submitted to Entangled Religions are subject to double-blind peer review.
While the final decision in favour or against publication of a contribution rests with Entangled Religions, our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of our journal.

We ask peer-reviewers to choose one of the following options for recommendation:
a) Accepted without any changes
b) Accepted with suggested minor revisions
c) Recommendation of major revisions and re-submission
d) Rejected

When preparing a review for Entangled Religions, you might want to check the following criteria...

Language:

  • Is the contribution written in fluent, academic English?
  • Does the style allow for easy reading?
  • Does the author use either the British or the American spelling convention consistently throughout their contribution?`
  • Are termini technici translated consistently and adequately?
  • In case of alphabets other than the Latin one: does the author provide sufficient and correct transcription/transliteration?
  • Are quotes from languages other than English given in translation?

 

Form:

  • Does the author follow the guidelines set out in our Manuscript Preparation Checklist?
  • Does the article adhere to the guidelines for author-date citation given in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition?
  • Is the form of citation in text, notes and reference list consistent and comprehensible?

Scope and Treatment of Topic:

  • In how far does the contribution add to our understanding of religious contact and transfer?
  • Is the matter treated new, innovative and promissing? 
  • How comprehensive, multilingual and current are the sources used?
  • Is the contribution structured logically and clearly through an adequate number of chapters and sub-chapters?
  • Is there an adequate balance between reliance on existing scholarship and innovative elements?
  • How multinational and trans-disciplinary is the topic in question?
  • Are the standards of theoretical foundation and/or emprical examination considered and met to an appropriate degree?

Readership:

  • Are explanations for non-experts and information for experts in the field balanced well in the contribution?
  • Is the subject matter interesting for both experts of the respective discipline and a wider readership?
  • Does the author provide appropriate and sufficient context to highlight the importance and impetus of their findings?