Guidelines for Editors and Reviewers

This section provides a description of general processes after an article is submitted. 

Process

1. Articles are received by the editor-in-chief and reviewed for appropriateness.
2. Articles are sent to two reviewers.  A third reviewer may be used as well. 
3. Reviewers are asked to dedicate an appropriate amount of time to the process of giving feedback to the editor-in-chief.  However, reviewers should be prompt in order to keep the process moving (a maximum of a 4 week turn-around is expected.)  Please be aware that MS Word® captures user name in preferences of documents, therefore editors and reviewers should save the manuscript without your name, which will allow you to comment anonymously.  Check your Word preferences to alter your name in “User Information”.
4. Reviewers provide feedback and make recommendation for disposition of the article.  Reviewers will evaluate the article using the following recommendations.  Please provide rationale for your judgment:
   • Publish as is (or with minor revisions noted)
   • Publish with needed changes
   • Consider publication with major reworking of the article
   • Don’t publish
5. In the case of revisions or re-writes, the editors will work with the author to ensure appropriate revisions are made prior to publication.
6. Editors will make the final decision about the placement of the article in the journal.  Articles will be compiled as full-text documents in pdf format for each volume. 

Please review in such a way to help both the editors and authors improve the article where appropriate.  Use the following rubric to provide feedback.  Consider the following areas:

• quality of writing,
• grounding in literature and/or theory,
• sound methods of data collection and analysis,
• results and conclusions based on evidence,
• suitability for the journal. 

Writing Style

• Does the manuscript adhere to APA 6^th edition format? 
  • In-text citations
  • References
  • Formatting
  • Mechanics
• Is the writing clear and the topic effectively communicated? 
• Is the piece engaging and interesting?

Grounding

• Is the manuscript grounded in the appropriate literature and/or theory base?
• Does the author put forth an appropriate theoretical, conceptual, historical, or foundational perspective for the research?
• Is the problem, thesis, or essence of the piece well established and presented?

Methods

• Are the research purpose, design, methods, and results clearly presented?
• Are the design and methods defensible?
• Are implications for professional practice clearly and appropriately communicated? 
• Are there unanswered questions regarding the methods utilized in the paper?

Suitability

• Does the paper address a topic of interest and concern for social science researchers and practitioners? 
• Is the paper written from the perspective of a Christian scholar?
• Are there additional questions raised by a reading of the paper that ought to be addressed by the author?
• Is the paper appropriately directed to social scientists?