Colloquia Theologica Ottoniana

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

Stages of verifying the texts

As the quality of the published papers is our main concern, all submitted works are subject to three-stage procedure compliant with the guidelines of the Minister of Science and Higher Education contained in "Good practices in scientific reviewing procedures".

The preliminary stage, at the editor’s level, comprises a general evaluation of compliance of the proposed paper with the journal’s profile and establishing whether the computer file submitted by its author fulfills the anonymity criteria.

At the second stage, the editors assess the substantive quality of the manuscript and decide whether to send the manuscript for review, or to reject it (possibly at this stage, the author may be asked to introduce some corrections). The editors also assess whether the manuscript is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without further verification.

At the third stage the text is subject to a "double blind" review process carried out by at least two specialists of a given field of science. 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 final decision concerning the text’s publication in CTO is made by the editor-in-chief.


Rules of reviewing

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,
  • the editorial office reserves the right to forward the text to another reviewer if any formal or substantive irregularities in the reviews received.

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. 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.

If the author considers some reviewers' comments to be incorrect, he may inform the editorial office about it. Then the editors analyse the author's opinion and respond to it. If it is necessary to introduce some corrections, the author submits the corrected manuscript within the prescribed period, in which the amendments are marked in red font. Then, the editors check whether the author took note of the reviewers' comments. If the author has not introduced the recommended corrections and has not responded to them, his manuscript will be rejected.