QUT

Instructions for reviewers

Please read the publication ethics, review procedure and reviewer responsibilities on the official website of the journal.

Follow the instructions in the system when preparing your review.

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS

Qut: Journal of Religion, Philosophy and Culture follows the principles of objective, independent, and confidential peer review. Reviewers are kindly requested to adhere to the following guidelines.

1. General Principles

  • The journal applies a double-blind peer review process.
  • Reviewers must ensure objectivity, academic integrity, and impartiality.
  • All materials received for review are confidential and must not be shared with third parties.

2. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must inform the editorial office and decline the review if:

  • there is any personal or professional conflict of interest with the authors;
  • the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following aspects:

  • scientific contribution and originality;
  • appropriateness of methodology and validity of conclusions;
  • use of relevant and recent scholarly literature;
  • clarity of structure and argumentation;
  • compliance with academic standards and ethical norms.

4. Review Report

The review should:

  • provide a substantiated and critical evaluation of the manuscript;
  • identify strengths and weaknesses;
  • include specific recommendations for improvement;
  • be written in a professional and respectful tone.

The minimum length of the detailed review is 150–200 words.

5. Ethical Issues

Reviewers should notify the editorial office of:

  • any evidence of plagiarism or self-plagiarism;
  • data fabrication or falsification;
  • violations of research ethics.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the specified deadline.
If unable to complete the review, they should inform the editorial office promptly.

7. Final Recommendation

Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  • accept;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • major revisions required;
  • reject.

8. Responsibility

Reviewers are responsible for the quality and objectivity of their evaluation, which directly affects the academic standard of the journal.