Reflexical: Journal of Religion, Philosophy, Social, and Cultural Studies employs a double-blind peer-review process to ensure an objective, fair, and rigorous evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Under this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to Reflexical undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review. The editorial team evaluates each manuscript based on its relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, academic quality, methodological appropriateness, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal's submission guidelines.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability for evaluating the submitted work. The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest in the reviewer selection process.

3. Double-Blind Review

In the double-blind review process, reviewers do not have access to the identity or affiliation of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Authors are therefore encouraged to ensure that their manuscripts do not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identity during the review process.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on relevant academic criteria, including:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope
• Originality and significance of the research
• Clarity of research objectives and research questions
• Adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology
• Theoretical and conceptual foundation
• Quality and relevance of the literature
• Accuracy and clarity of analysis
• Coherence of results and discussion
• Contribution to scholarly knowledge
• Quality and clarity of academic writing
• Compliance with research and publication ethics

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and scholarly comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Reviewer's Recommendation

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions Required
• Reject

The final editorial decision is made by the editor based on the reviewers' comments, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors will be asked to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments. Authors should provide a clear response to each substantive comment and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Editorial Decision

The editor has the final authority to accept or reject a manuscript. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical standards, and the overall contribution of the manuscript.

The editor may request additional review or consultation when reviewers provide substantially different recommendations or when further assessment is considered necessary.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must also disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline the review when their relationship with the authors or the subject matter could affect their impartiality.

9. Review Timeline

Reflexical aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revisions required.

The editorial team may invite additional reviewers when necessary to ensure a fair and reliable evaluation.

10. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made based on a significant misunderstanding or procedural error may submit an appeal to the editorial team.

Appeals must provide clear and substantive reasons and should address specific concerns regarding the editorial or review process. Appeals will be considered by the editor in accordance with the journal's policies, and the decision on an appeal will be final.

Through its double-blind peer-review process, Reflexical is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, academic rigor, and integrity throughout the publication process.