Theological Views primarily publishes original scientific papers on theological and religious subjects. By cultivating an interdisciplinary approach, the journal is open for works based on research in other social sciences and humanities, in so far as they contain theological reflection or otherwise correspond to the theological and religious topics. Theological Views primarily publishes papers in Serbian and English. All papers are reviewed anonymously and two times. Editorial Board of the Theological Views holds to very high ethical and academic standards in publication of scientific papers (see Ethical and Scientific Standards).
The process of reviewing
After receiving the paper, Editorial Board will first decide whether the work fits the profile of the journal and whether it should be sent for review. If the Editorial Board evaluates paper as the corresponding to the profile of the journal, the paper is submitted to two reviewers. The names of reviewers are not and will not be known to the authors and all communication takes place through Editorial Board. Reviewers receive the paper without the authors’ names or other information that would reveal the identity of the author.
If the article is unconditionally accepted by both reviewers, the work is accepted for publication. If it is rejected by both reviewers, the work will not be published. If a reviewer or both reviewers asked for the article to be finished, the author will be introduced with requirements. After corrections/modifications, the article will be resubmitted to the reviewer/reviewers. If the reviewers estimate that the conditions are met, paper will be published. If one reviewer conditionally or unconditionally evaluates paper as positive and the other as negative, then a third reviewer will be engaged, and his review will be final.
1. Scope, structure and scientific basis
It is necessary for the reviewer to determine whether the work has an adequate logical structure, whether the topic is scientifically relevant and whether the work meets general linguistic and scientific standards.
2. Special elements
The reviewer should assess the methodological and theoretical-conceptual foundation of the article, especially with regard to the following questions: a) does the title correspond to the content? b) is additional argumentation required? c) was relevant scientific literature used? and d) does the summary match the content?
For each question to which the reviewer's answer is not positive, specific remarks should be given.
3. Evaluation of work and conclusion
The reviewer gives a short final evaluation of the work and a recommendation to the Editorial Board.
If he considers it necessary, the reviewer can make other suggestions and remarks that may affect the quality of the work or the quality assessment.
