Colloquia Theologica Ottoniana

ISSN: 1731-0555     eISSN: 2353-2998    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/cto

Peer review procedure

Each article submitted to CTO is subject to two-stage reviewing procedure compliant with the guidelines of the Minister of Science and Higher Education contained in "Good practices in scientific reviewing procedures".

During the first stage the editorial team or members of the Scientific Board check if the paper’s nature corresponds with the journal’s profile. If necessary, the text is devoid of any information enabling to track the author.

During the second stage the paper is sent to two independent reviewers: parties cooperating with the journal on a permanent basis, members of its Scientific Board or other specialists appointed by the editorial team. The editors make every effort to ensure that the text is not reviewed by a party who remains in a conflict of interest with the paper’s author. For this purpose reviewer fills relevant declaration (declaration of reviewer).

The following reviewing principles are observed:

  • articles are submitted for reviewing without its author’s name (we recommend to avoid any notes referring the readers to the author’s other works; such notes may be affixed while editing),
  • reviewers remain anonymous for authors.

To ensure full transparency of the review process, we officially provide the template of the review form, which is sent to reviewers along with the proposed article (review form). 

In the review’s conclusion each reviewer selects one of the options:

  • the text is approved for publishing without any changes,
  • after revising the article to address the reviewer’s comments, the text is approved for publishing without additional reviewing process,
  • the text should be revised to address the reviewer’s comments and subject to additional reviewing process,
  • the text is not approved for publishing.

In case of receiving one negative conclusion, the text is sent to the third reviewer whose opinion is deemed as decisive in the matter of submitting the text to further stages of publishing procedure. In case of receiving two negative conclusions, the text is not published.

Regardless of the reviewers’ conclusions, the author is acquainted with their content and may respond to them.