Peer Review Process

12 Waiheru applies a rigorous double-blind peer review system to maintain high academic standards, originality, and integrity in all published works. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process, ensuring a fair, unbiased, and objective evaluation.

Each manuscript is carefully assessed based on its scholarly contribution, including originality, conceptual and theoretical strength, methodological soundness, analytical clarity, and relevance to the journal’s focus on education, training, and religious studies in diverse contexts.

Review Stages

1. Submission and Preliminary Editorial Check

Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team conducts an initial evaluation to determine whether it fits the journal’s scope and meets basic submission requirements, including formatting and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s focus or fail to meet minimum standards may be declined at this stage.

2. Similarity Screening

All submissions are examined using plagiarism detection tools to verify originality. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels or indications of academic misconduct will not proceed further in the review process.

3. Editorial Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary stage are assigned to an editor with relevant expertise, who will oversee the review process and ensure its academic quality and consistency.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The manuscript is then sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, theoretical and conceptual contribution, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and its significance to the broader academic community.

5. Review Outcomes

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
  • Reject

6. Editorial Decision

The Editor makes a decision based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations. If necessary, additional reviewers may be invited, especially in cases where evaluations differ significantly.

7. Revision Stage

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ feedback and submit a revised version along with a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

8. Final Evaluation

The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the Editor and, when necessary, by the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been adequately resolved before a final decision is reached.

9. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo a professional editing process to improve clarity, language quality, and formatting. This is followed by proofreading to ensure accuracy and consistency prior to publication.

10. Publication

The final version of the manuscript is published online in the designated issue of the journal and made openly accessible to readers worldwide.

Estimated Timeline

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review process: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision by authors: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision and publication: 2–4 weeks