Editorial Process and Peer Review

The journal Anales de Teología subjects research articles and translations to external peer review. Book reviews do not undergo external peer review but are assessed by the editorial team before publication.

The review and editorial decision process, from receipt of the manuscript to notification of the final decision, is managed through the journal’s electronic platform and comprises three stages. When a conflict of interest arises, the duties assigned to the Editor-in-Chief under this policy are performed by a substitute, in accordance with the Editorial Ethics and Independence policy.

First stage: editorial assessment

The Editorial Team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal.

For research articles, the assessment examines alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, the theological relevance of the problem addressed, and the presence of a clearly identifiable thesis or objective. It also verifies that the text develops a consistent argument, engages with relevant scholarly literature, and makes a discernible contribution to theological debate. This assessment determines whether the manuscript qualifies as a research article and meets the minimum scholarly requirements for external review.

For translations, the assessment considers the theological and scholarly relevance of the text, the rationale for a new translation, and its contribution to access to, study of, or discussion of the translated work. It also verifies that the source edition is identified, that the necessary permissions have been obtained, and, where appropriate, that an introduction or critical apparatus is included to provide adequate context for the text.

Book reviews must go beyond summarizing the contents of a work. They must reconstruct its main arguments, situate it within the author’s intellectual development or the theological tradition or debate to which it belongs, and offer a reasoned critical assessment of its contributions, scope, and limitations.

This first stage also verifies that the submission is original and previously unpublished, that it meets the essential editorial requirements, and, where applicable, that the file has been properly anonymized.

Following this assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may reject the manuscript or request revisions. Research articles and translations may also be sent for external review; book reviews may be accepted for publication.

Second stage: external peer review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent specialists from outside UCSC, selected for their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area and after declaring that they have no conflicts of interest. Members of the Editorial Team and the Editorial Board do not serve as manuscript reviewers.

The review follows a double-anonymous model: the journal does not disclose the authors’ identities to the reviewers or the reviewers’ identities to the authors.

External review focuses on the conceptual and scholarly aspects of the manuscript. For research articles, particular attention is paid to the originality of the contribution, the rigor and coherence of the argument, the appropriateness of the sources, and the relevance of the work to theological debate. For translations, reviewers assess fidelity and conceptual accuracy, the theological and linguistic quality of the translation, the relevance of the translated text, and, where applicable, the consistency of its critical apparatus.

Reviewers are not responsible for checking purely formal or typographical matters, unless these compromise the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, or scholarly consistency.

Reviewers provide reasoned reports and recommend acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. These recommendations do not in themselves constitute an editorial decision and are not binding on the journal.

When the reports differ substantially, the manuscript will be sent to a third external reviewer who meets the same requirements of independence, expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest. No member of the Editorial Team or the Editorial Board serves as an adjudicating reviewer when reports diverge.

Manuscripts, supplementary files, personal data, editorial communications, and review reports are confidential. The Editorial Team and reviewers must not reproduce, distribute, disclose to third parties, or use for their own benefit any confidential materials or information obtained during the review process. This obligation continues after the process has concluded for all information that has not become public.

For reasons of confidentiality, the Editorial Team and reviewers must not enter, upload, or share manuscripts or associated materials, in whole or in part, in generative artificial intelligence systems, regardless of the intended purpose. Other conditions applicable to these tools are set out in the Use and Limits of Artificial Intelligence policy.

The editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who considers the external reports and all other relevant information from the process. The Editor-in-Chief may depart from the reviewers’ recommendations when sufficient scholarly or ethical grounds exist; in such cases, the reasons will be recorded in the editorial file and communicated to the authors.

At the end of this stage, the Editor-in-Chief may accept the manuscript, reject it, or request a revised version. The decision and relevant reports are communicated through the platform, preserving the reviewers’ anonymity.

Third stage: assessment of revisions

Every revised manuscript must be accompanied by a response letter in which the authors explain the changes made and indicate where they appear in the revised version. When a recommendation has not been implemented, the authors must provide a reasoned explanation for that decision. Revised versions submitted without this letter will not proceed further in the editorial process.

The Editor-in-Chief examines the revised version and the response letter. When the revisions requested by the reviewers are substantial, the revised version undergoes further external review, preferably by the same reviewers; when they are minor, the Editor-in-Chief verifies that they have been implemented. Depending on the outcome, the Editor-in-Chief may accept the manuscript, request further revisions, or reject it.

Revisions may be requested at the end of any of the three stages. A request for revisions does not in itself imply acceptance of the manuscript.

Time frames

The journal aims to complete the preliminary editorial assessment within fifteen days of receiving the manuscript. The first round of external review is estimated to take eight weeks from the date the manuscript is sent to reviewers. These time frames are indicative and may vary depending on the availability of specialists, the complexity of the manuscript, and the possible need for further reviews or revisions.

The process is conducted in accordance with the Editorial Ethics and Independence policy. Objections concerning the procedure or an editorial decision are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy.