COMMUNIO VIATORUM
Communio viatorum is a peer-reviewed journal that follows all ethical guidelines necessary for publishing high-quality original articles in the field of theology. Communication between authors, editors, reviewers, and the editorial board is transparent, professional, and conducted in accordance with the COPE Code of Conduct. The texts published in the journal must be relevant to the journal’s area of expertise and undergo a double-blind peer review process.
Authors
Authors warrant that the text offered to Communio viatorum is their original work and has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere. They must properly acknowledge any ideas or formulations that are not their own. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is unethical. Similarly, plagiarism and deliberate misrepresentation of facts are unacceptable. Authors are responsible for both content and form of their claims proposed in submitted texts. If the language of the text is not the authors’ mother tongue, they may be asked to have it proofread by a native speaker.
Editors
The editors evaluate submitted texts for their suitability to the journal’s subject matter, scope, and level of preparation. If deemed appropriate, the text is sent for a double-blind peer review process, where an anonymized version is assessed by two independent experts. If the text is, from the outset, not suitable for the journal’s subject matter or scope, or if its scholarly level is clearly low, the editors inform the author promptly, explaining the reasons for non-acceptance.
Upon receipt of the reviews, the editors will inform the authors of the outcome and send any requests for revisions to the text. Authors’ revising the text according to the reviewers’ recommendations is a prerequisite for further editorial activity. In case of inconclusive reviews, the editors will commission an additional review.
The responsibility for selecting which texts are published lies solely with the editors. Their decisions are based solely on the recommendations of reviewers, considering the intellectual content and contribution to the field of research. Reviewer evaluations are confidential and shared only with the editorial board and the respective author. To ensure the sincerity and objectivity of the evaluation process, the editors maintain anonymity for both authors and reviewers during and after the review process.
Reviewers
Reviewers must be from an institution other than the one at which the author of the article is based. They work for the journal on a voluntary, unpaid basis and have the right to decline to review a particular manuscript at their discretion, e.g. if their current workload or other commitments prevent them from completing the review in a timely manner. Reviewers should not accept manuscripts that they do not feel competent to review or for which they feel a conflict of interest.
Reviewers who accept a manuscript for review are expected to submit their evaluations within four weeks, unless otherwise agreed. All manuscripts submitted for review are considered confidential. Reviews should be impartial, clearly articulated, and supported by evidence. Reviewers are encouraged to identify any relevant works that the author may have overlooked and suggest appropriate citations. Additionally, reviewers should alert the editors to any suspected instances of plagiarism in the manuscript.
Misconduct statement
Editors are responsible for preventing, identifying, and addressing any misconduct related to a submission or published article. If there are concerns about an ethical aspect of a proposed text or an already published paper, they should address the matter accordingly. If they are unable to resolve the issue within the editorial office, they may invite two independent members of the editorial board to work with them to form an internal ethics committee. Where possible, editors should follow the procedures recommended by COPE in resolving problems.
