For the editors and reviewers

Guidelines for Editors

This document defines the ethical framework governing the editorial and publishing activities of Forum Theologicum Sardicense. It has been developed in accordance with the profile and mission of the journal and is based on internationally recognized standards of academic integrity and good practice in scholarly publishing. Its primary purpose is to ensure the reliability, transparency, and accountability of academic publication, as well as to address potential risk areas such as authorship, data management, conflicts of interest, and academic misconduct throughout the entire publishing process.

Role of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board bears primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity and proper conduct of the editorial process. It acknowledges the ethical obligations of all participants in scholarly publishing and is committed to promoting the application of these principles by editors, reviewers, and authors associated with Forum Theologicum Sardicense. Compliance with these guidelines is understood as a collective responsibility and as a necessary condition for the objective evaluation and publication of reliable scholarly research.

Members of the Editorial Board are publicly listed on the journal’s website together with their institutional affiliations, professional contact details, ORCID identifiers, and other relevant academic links. They bear both collective and individual responsibility for maintaining the academic authority and reputation of the journal.

Editorial Independence and Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made independently and solely on the basis of the scholarly merits of the submitted manuscript. Editors are required to assess submissions according to their originality, argumentative coherence, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s thematic scope, without influence from personal preferences, institutional affiliations, commercial interests, or external pressure. Transparency of the editorial process is a fundamental principle of editorial ethics.

In cases of suspected undue influence or infringement of editorial independence, the matter should be referred to the Editors-in-Chief. In instances of serious ethical violations, the Editorial Board reserves the right to terminate the participation of a given editor.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not handle manuscripts in cases where a real or perceived conflict of interest exists. Such situations include, but are not limited to, close personal relationships with the authors, prior co-authorship of the same text, financial interests, or competing research projects. In the presence of a conflict of interest, the editor is obliged to withdraw from the editorial handling of the manuscript, which shall be reassigned to another editor without such a conflict.

The allocation of editorial responsibilities is the responsibility of the Editors-in-Chief and is implemented by the technical assistant and academic secretary.

Ethical Oversight of Manuscripts

Editors, including the Editor-in-Chief who conducts the initial screening of all submitted manuscripts, are responsible for ensuring compliance with established ethical standards of academic research and publishing. Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for clarification or revision, or, in cases of serious violations, rejected outright.

Academic misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification of data, constitutes a serious threat to trust in scholarly literature. All reports of such misconduct are examined carefully, impartially, and in accordance with established procedures by the Editors-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board.

Originality Checks and Retraction of Publications

The originality of all submitted manuscripts is the responsibility of their authors, but may be verified through specialized plagiarism-detection software. In cases where concerns arise after publication, a subsequent review may be conducted. If academic misconduct is confirmed, the Editorial Board may consult independent experts and, if necessary, proceed with the formal retraction of the publication. The reasons for retraction are publicly disclosed in order to preserve transparency and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Confidentiality and Information Protection

Editors are responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of the editorial process. Information concerning the content of manuscripts, the identities of authors and reviewers, and the stages of peer review must not be disclosed to individuals outside the Editorial Board and the appointed reviewers. The use of unpublished data or ideas for personal scholarly purposes constitutes a serious ethical violation.

Complaints, Objections, and Appeals

Authors have the right to submit complaints regarding alleged bias, procedural irregularities, or unfair treatment during the editorial process. Complaints are reviewed by the Editorial Board through the Editors-in-Chief in an objective and transparent manner. Where appropriate, an appeal process may be initiated, including the reassessment of the manuscript by independent reviewers.

Accountability and Consistency

Editorial responsibility requires openness, consistency, and well-reasoned decision-making. Feedback provided to authors should be constructive and based on clear scholarly criteria. Editors must be prepared to justify their decisions in cases of objection or external review.

Post-Publication Responsibilities

The commitment to academic integrity extends beyond publication. Forum Theologicum Sardicense affirms its responsibility for the accuracy and reliability of published content. Editors are obliged to correct errors promptly or to take appropriate action in cases where ethical concerns arise after publication. Minor inaccuracies may be addressed through correction notices, while serious violations may necessitate retraction.

All decisions regarding corrections or retractions are taken collectively by the Editorial Board and are communicated transparently. The journal also encourages responsible scholarly dialogue after publication, including letters and comments addressed to the editorial office, as part of its mission to foster open and critical academic exchange.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

The peer-review process is a central mechanism for ensuring the scholarly quality and academic reliability of publications in Forum Theologicum Sardicense. These guidelines aim to define the role, responsibilities, and ethical obligations of reviewers, while ensuring consistency, transparency, and fairness in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. They are grounded in internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and best practices in the humanities.

The Editorial Board of Forum Theologicum Sardicense regards reviewers as collaborators in the scholarly process, whose expert judgment is essential for the advancement of research and for maintaining the academic profile of the journal.

Role and Function of the Reviewer

The reviewer’s task is not limited to assessing the suitability of a manuscript for publication. It includes a critical yet constructive reading aimed at identifying the scholarly contribution, logical coherence, clarity of argumentation, and appropriate use of sources. The reviewer assists the editor in making an informed decision and simultaneously supports the author in improving the manuscript, regardless of the final outcome.

Acceptance of a review invitation implies that the reviewer possesses the necessary expertise and sufficient time to carry out a thorough and responsible evaluation.

Confidentiality of the Review Process

All materials provided to the reviewer must be treated as strictly confidential and anonymous. Manuscripts may not be shared, copied, cited, or discussed with third parties without explicit permission from the editorial office. This obligation applies even when a review invitation is declined after the manuscript content has already been accessed.

In the context of double-blind peer review, particular care must be taken to ensure that reviewer comments do not directly or indirectly reveal the reviewer’s identity.

Approach to Evaluation and Feedback

Reviews should be well-reasoned, clear, and focused on the content of the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to identify the main contributions of the text, point out specific issues, and suggest possible directions for improvement. Criticism should be scholarly in nature and not directed toward the author personally.

The language of the review should be measured and professional. Even when serious weaknesses or grounds for rejection are identified, the assessment should be presented with academic integrity and respect.

Timeliness and Responsibility

Timely completion of reviews is essential for the effective functioning of the editorial process. Reviewers commit to submitting their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If this becomes impossible, the editorial office should be notified promptly to avoid undue delays in editorial decisions.

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential ethical issues. These include, but are not limited to, suspicions of plagiarism, improper citation practices, methodological inconsistencies, or concerns regarding the reliability of data and arguments. When such concerns arise, the reviewer should inform the editor and provide specific reasons, without drawing definitive conclusions.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to disclose any circumstances that could compromise their impartiality. These may include personal, institutional, or professional relationships with the author, as well as competing scholarly interests. In such cases, the editorial office will determine whether the review process may continue or whether another reviewer should be appointed.

Intellectual Integrity

Ideas, interpretations, and arguments contained in a manuscript under review must not be used by the reviewer for their own scholarly purposes prior to publication. Such use constitutes a violation of academic ethics and undermines trust in the peer-review process.

The Review and the Editorial Decision

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript, providing clear justification for their recommendation. These recommendations assist the editor but are not binding. The final decision is made by the editorial team following a comprehensive assessment of all received reviews.

Adherence to these guidelines contributes to the maintenance of high scholarly standards and to the establishment of Forum Theologicum Sardicense as a reliable platform for academic theological research. Through responsible peer review, conditions are created for critical dialogue, scholarly integrity, and trust in published knowledge.