By definition, peer-reviewed journals cannot exist without peer-reviewers. We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and to thank the many referees who have donated their time and expertise to reading and commenting on articles submitted for potential publication in Religion. Since we took over editing this journal in 2008, this is the fourth in a series of editorials that acknowledges the many scholars who have contributed in this way (see Stausberg and Engler Citation2010; Citation2013; Citation2016).
During the period 2015–2016, 180 scholars acted as reviewers, sometimes more than once. They work at institutions in—or are independent scholars resident in—32 countries (number of reviewers from each in parentheses): USA (71), UK (31), Germany (11), Denmark (7), Canada (6), the Netherlands (5), Norway (5), Sweden (5), Italy (4), Switzerland (4), Brazil (3), Israel (3), Japan (3), Australia (2), Poland (2), Romania (2), Austria (1), China (1), Cyprus (1), Finland (1), France (1), Ghana (1), Hungary (1), India (1), Lebanon (1), Mexico (1), New Zealand (1), Philippines (1), Republic of Korea (1), Serbia (1), South Africa (1), and Thailand (1). (Eight referees did not respond to our request for permission to publish their names, though their locations are included in this country data.)
This geographical distribution roughly reflects the geographical origin of the manuscripts submitted to the journal. During the period 2015–2016, work written by scholars resident in some 34 countries was (re)submitted to the journal (excluding articles from thematic issues). The USA and the UK continue to top the list—each of the two countries amounting to around 21 per cent of all submissions. Scholars from the following countries contributed between approximately two to seven per cent of submissions during this period (in order of frequency): Israel, Malaysia, Poland, Iran, Finland, Norway, Canada, and Germany.
Accept Rate and Turnaround Time
According to information provided by the publisher, during the reported timeframe of 2015–2016, 20 per cent of the total number of unsolicited manuscripts were accepted. This is an increase compared to earlier reports (2013–2014: 14 per cent; 2011–2012: 17 per cent). We are hoping for this percentage to increase further. As editors, we always wish to see more excellent work published.
For the period 2015–2016, 88 per cent of all submissions received a final decision within 90 days or less, 43 per cent within the first 30 days. The average time to a first decision for all submissions was 47 days (excluding thematic issue articles).
Peer Review Policy
This year, we revised our statement of the journal's review policy—though not our practices—in order to make our procedures even more transparent. This statement is found on the Instructions for Authors page of the publisher’s site of the journal (https://is.gd/DClLnG). We reproduce it here, given its relevance:
The practice of peer review lies at the heart of first-rate scholarly publishing and is essential to ensuring academic quality. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of RELIGION. All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below. Referees advise the editors, who alone are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject submissions. Note that thematic issues have different peer review procedures applied in consultation with the guest editor(s) in charge.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The editors first evaluate all manuscripts. Some manuscripts are rejected at this stage (‘desk reject'). These include submissions that fall outside the aims and scope of the journal and / or that have serious and obvious flaws, for example with argumentation, documentation, comprehensibility etc. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 3 weeks of receipt. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are sent to at least two experts for review.
How referees are selected
The editors match referees to submission according to the former’s area(s) of expertise. The journal’s editorial board and authors themselves are important resources in this process. Our database of referees is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for referees from authors; these recommendations may or may not be followed up upon; at least one referee not suggested by the author will be invited to review the submission. Authors are given the option of listing scholars that they do not wish to be included as referees.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and are requested to assess the originality, scope of interest, methodological and theoretical qualities, adherence to norms of expression, appropriate standards of research ethics, correct referencing of previous research and overall quality of the manuscript. Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
How long does the review process take?
Submissions are typically reviewed within three months. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report be unsatisfactory or delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought.
Final report
A final decision to accept, revise, resubmit or reject the manuscript will be sent by the editor(s) to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees. Verbatim comments by the referees may also be sent to authors, except those submitted explicitly for the editors’ consideration only. Articles are rarely accepted as is upon initial submission. The editors and referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript. Resubmissions and articles with substantial revisions will be reviewed by at least one new referee. On rare occasions, a submission that received favourable assessments in a first or later round of review may reveal issues in a later round that call for a further significant revisions or for a final 'reject' decision. Editors’ decisions are final.
Acknowledgement of and benefits for reviewers
The benefits of refereeing for RELIGION include the opportunity to read, see and evaluate the latest work in religious studies at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. This includes the opportunity for referees to learn of the outcome of the decision process to which they contributed, including their having anonymous access to the reports of all referees who assessed the submission at a given phase of the review process. Reviewers will be given the opportunity to be acknowledged in a list which is published in the journal every 2-3 years. Reviewers who provide their reports using our on-line system also receive a voucher allowing for purchase of Routledge books at a reduced price.
Review Criteria
Also with an eye to making our process as transparent as possible, we reproduce here the list of criteria that reviewers are provided as they assess submissions. These fall under two headings: substantive and formal:
Substantive criteria
Is the aim or main take-home point of the research clearly stated?
Is the empirical evidence sufficient to support the claims that are made?
Are there gaps in the argument?
Has the methodology been made explicit and/or is it appropriate?
Does the paper contribute to or engage with theory? Is the theory choice and the conceptual work effective and appropriate?
If the article engages with an area or issue characterized by different perspectives, are these adequately represented?
Are there important primary or secondary sources that the paper fails to refer to?
Does the paper make a contribution to the study of religion\s in general?
Is the article of interest only to specialists, or would it have value for more generalist readers? If the former, are there aspects of the article that could be strengthened so as to increase its relevance for a more general readership?
Would the article be better suited for a different journal? If so, which one(s)
What percentile ranking would you give this article (top 50%, top 25%, top 10%, top 5%)?
Formal criteria
Does the abstract summarize the core claims/issues in a succinct manner?
Have appropriate keywords been selected? Would you suggest others?
Does the conclusion (whether or not this is a separate section) review the article’s main claims effectively?
Is the article written clearly and comprehensibly?
Are key/technical/insider terms clearly explained?
Does the introduction set up the analysis in a manner that will orient readers unfamiliar with the area?
Is the length of the article appropriate or should it be trimmed or extended?
Are there points where readers would benefit from more detail or context, or from less?
If useful, does the author separate the article into sections that help the reader follow along? Are sub-sections clearly organized in a manner that strengthens the flow of description, analysis or argument?
Does the article use jargon that could be avoided?
Are there significant spelling, grammatical or syntactical problems?
Peer-reviewers for 2015–2016 (compiled by Julia McLenon)
Seth Abrutyn, University of British Columbia, Canada
Aminah McCloud al-Deen, DePaul University, USA
Gregory D. Alles, McDaniel College, USA
Adam Anczyk, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Naomi Andrews, Santa Clara University, USA
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Emory University, USA
Stefan Arvidsson, Linnäus University, Sweden
J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, Trinity Theological Seminary, Ghana
Egil Asprem, Stockholm University, Sweden
Orit Avishai, Fordham University, USA
Martin Baumann, University of Lucerne, Switzerland
Gwilym Beckerlegge, The Open University, UK
Gustavo Benavides, Villanova University (retired), USA
Matthias Berek, University of Leipzig, Germany
Helen A Berger, Brandeis University, USA
Michael Bergunder, Heidelberg University, Germany
Stephen C. Berkwitz, Missouri State University, USA
James S. Bielo, Miami University, USA
Brian Black, Lancaster University, UK
Lucy Bregman, Temple University, USA
Tone Bringa, University of Bergen, Norway
Brian Britt, Virginia Tech, USA
Edwin Bryant, Rutgers University, USA
David Buchta, Brown University Virginia Tech, USA
Joseph Bulbulia, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Dylan Burns, University of Leipzig, Germany
Heidi A Campbell, Texas A&M University, USA
Nicholas Campion, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, UK
Fenella Cannell, London School of Economics, UK
Nanlai Cao, Renmin University, China
Jeremy Carrette, University of Kent, UK
Julia Cassaniti, Washington State University, USA
Travis Chilcott, Iowa State University, USA
Eugen Ciurtin, Romanian Academy, Romania
Simon Coleman, University of Toronto, Canada
Scott Cormode, Fuller University, USA
Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
John Corrigan, Florida State University, USA
Anna Corwin, Saint Mary’s College of California, USA
James Cox, University of Edinburgh (emeritus), UK
Adrian Coyle, Kingston University, London, UK
Vincent Crapanzano, CUNY Graduate Center, USA
Finbarr Curtis, Georgia Southern University, USA
Carole Cusack, University of Sydney, Australia
Grace Davie, University of Exeter (emeritus), UK
Douglas J. Davies, Durham University, UK
Richard H. Davis, Bard College, USA
Andrew Dawson, Lancaster University, UK
Abby Day, University of London, UK
Max Deeg, Cardiff University, UK and Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany
Michel Despland, Concordia University (retired), Canada
Ari Engelberg, Hadassah Academic College, Israel
Vincent Eltschinger, International Institute for Asian Studies, the Netherlands
Douglas Ezzy, University of Tasmania, Australia.
Laura Feldt, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Giovanni Filoramo, University of Turin, Italy
Martha L. Finch, Missouri State University, USA
David Fishman, Jewish Theological Seminary, USA
Gavin Flood, Oxford University, UK
David P. Forsythe, University of Nebraska (emeritus), USA
Caroline Fraser, Freelance writer, USA
Courtney J. P. Friesen, University of Arizona, USA
Satoko Fujiwara, University of Tokyo, Japan
Robert C. Fuller, Bradley University, USA
Paolo Gaibazzi, Centre for Modern Oriental Studies, Germany
Florence Galmiche, Paris Diderot University, France
Michel Gardaz, University of Ottawa, Canada
Mark Q. Gardiner, Mount Royal University, Canada
Giulia Gasparro, University of Messina, Italy
Armin W. Geertz, Aarhus University, Denmark
Joel Gereboff, Arizona State University, USA
Fritz Graf, Ohio State University, USA
Kennet Granholm, independent scholar, Sweden
Halina Grzymala-Moszczynska, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Conrad Hackett, Pew Research Center, USA
Olav Hammer, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Wouter Hanegraaff, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Austin Harrington, University of Leeds, UK
Kimberly Hart, SUNY Buffalo State, USA
Graham Harvey, The Open University, UK
Brian Hatcher, Tufts University, USA
Kelly E. Hayes, Indiana University, USA
Adrian Hermann, University of Bonn, Germany
Andreas Heuser, University of Basel, Switzerland
Irving Hexham, University of Calgary, Canada
Titus Hjelm, University College London, UK
Christhard Hoffmann, University of Bergen, Norway
Annika Hvithamar, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Peter Jackson, Stockholm University, Sweden
Jeppe Sinding Jensen, Aarhus University, Denmark
Anderson H. M. Jeremiah, Lancaster University, UK
Jonathan Jong, Coventry University, UK
Dietrich Jung, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Hillary Kaell, Concordia University, Canada
Angela Kaupp, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Germany
Chae Young Kim, Sogang University, Republic of Korea
Kim Knibbe, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Hans Koechler, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Christine Hoff Kraemer, Cherry Hill Seminary, USA
Jeffrey J. Kripal, Rice University, USA
Oliver Krüger, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Joseph Laycock, Texas State University, USA
Stephen LeDrew, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Joonseong Lee, California State University, San Marcos, USA
Gabriel Levy, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Marjaana Lindeman, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dawn Llewellyn, University of Chester, UK
Kathryn Lofton, Yale University, USA
Joseph W.H. Lough, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Mia Lövheim, Uppsala University, Sweden
Shaul Magid, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
Aditya Malik, Nalanda University, India
Sylvia Marcos, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Mexico
Roxanne D Marcotte, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Tomoko Masuzawa, University of Michigan, USA
Arthur McCalla, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada
Andrew M. McKinnon, University of Aberdeen, UK
Laura Menin, University of Milano, Italy
Birgit Meyer, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Thomas Meyer, University of Munich, Germany
Aleksandra Djurić-Milovanović, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Serbia
Robert N. Minor, University of Kansas (emeritus), USA
John Warne Monroe, Iowa State University, USA
Rivka Neriya-Ben Shahar, Sapir Academic College, Israel
Ryan Nichols, California State University, Fullerton, USA
Kiyokazu Okita, Sophia University, Japan
Bjarne Wernicke-Olesen, Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, UK
Robert A. Orsi, Northwestern University, USA
Michael Ostling, Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University, USA
Lluis Oviedo, Pontifical University Antonianum, Italy
Mihaela Paraschivescu, independent scholar, Romania
Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Aarhus University, Denmark
Gert Pickel, Leipzig University, Germany
Kerstin Radde-Antweiler, University of Bremen, Germany
Bryan S. Rennie, Westminster College, USA
Astrid Reuter, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany
Terry Rey, Temple University, USA
David Robertson, Open University, UK
Maria José Rosado, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brazil
Andrea Rota, University of Bern, Switzerland
Victor Roudometof, University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Kevin Schilbrack, Appalachian State University, USA
Bettina Schmidt, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, UK
Chad Seales, University of Texas at Austin, USA
Robert A. Segal, University of Aberdeen, UK
Torunn Selberg, University of Bergen, Norway
Andrew Shtulman, Occidental College, USA
Vagner Gonçalves da Silva, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
Nikky-Guninder K. Singh, Colby College, USA
Benjamin Soares, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Jonathan Spencer, University of Edinburgh, UK
Bradley E. Starr, California State University, Fullerton, USA
Ivan Strenski, University of California Riverside, USA
Anna Strhan, University of Kent, UK
Nicola Tannenbaum, Lehigh University, USA
Ann Taves, University of California at Santa Barbara, USA
Berit Thorbjørnsrud, University of Oslo, Norway
Marta F. Topel, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
Asonzeh Ukah, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Neil van Leeuwen, Georgia State University, USA
Laura Vance, Warren Wilson College, USA
Amy B. Voorhees, independent scholar, USA
Joanne Punzo Waghorne, Syracuse University, USA
Naomi Weiner -Levy, David Yellin College, Israel
James K. Wellman, Jr., University of Washington, USA
Luke Whitmore, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, USA
Don Wiebe, Trinity College, University of Toronto, Canada
Katharine L. Wiegele, Northern Illinois University, USA
Linda Woodhead, Lancaster University, UK
David M. Wulff, Wheaton College, USA
Shin’ichi Yoshinaga, Maizuru National College of Technology, Japan
Edwin Zehner, Walailak University, Thailand
References
- Stausberg, Michael and Steven Engler. 2016. “Peer-reviewers and selected review statistics, 2013–2014.” Religion 46 (1): 1–6. doi: 10.1080/0048721X.2015.1125151
- Stausberg, Michael and Steven Engler. 2013. “Acknowledging Our Referees (with selected review statistics).” Religion 43 (4): 457–462. doi: 10.1080/0048721X.2013.837664
- Stausberg, Michael and Steven Engler. 2010. “Acknowledging Peer Review.” Religion 40 (3): 147–151. 10.1016/j.religion.2010.04.001