The journal operates a two-stage, double-blind peer review process. The author and reviewer should be anonymous at all stages of the review. After accepting the invitation to complete the review of this article, please refer to the information set out below to assist you in your feedback. The peer review form is available above (section 5). You can also upload additional files containing further comments relevant to the review on this page:

General guide to aid the review:

1) General comments and summary of recommendation
Does the article fit within the scope of the journal?

2) Content:
Please consider the originality, relevance and rigour of the submission and the author’s depth of understanding of the issues being researched. Please comment on the adequacy of the author’s referencing and whether or not the existing knowledge base has been explored and built upon. Please comment on methodologies used and their appropriateness, and the author’s use of the evidential base. Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?

3) Structure and argument:
Please consider whether the abstract summarises the arguments in a succinct and accurate way. Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated ? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?

4) Figures/tables:
Please comment on the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps – their relevance in terms of illustrating the arguments and supporting the evidential base, the quality of the formatting and presentation.

5) Formatting: does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?

5) Language:
Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement

Provide comments and suggestions for improvement, if required, with additional references or possible clarification of arguments, etc. You can also add comments to the text of the article and upload your comments, if you see fit.

Volume 10 - 2016

Articles

.jnl-nr0sjg{display:inline-block;color:inherit;}.jnl-nr0sjg:hover{text-decoration:none;}The Credible Witness: Bede's Response to Doubt

Reconstructing Late Antique Psychology: Reversion, Conversion and Introversion of the Soul

Theology as Academic Discourse in Greco-Roman Late Antiquity

The Credible Witness: Bede's Response to Doubt