PUBLICATION PROCESS

1. Every manuscript submitted to KENOSIS: Journal of Theology Studies must comply with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, and manuscript template established by the Editorial Board. Submitted manuscripts should demonstrate scientific rigor, originality, and scholarly significance while contributing to the advancement of theological studies, biblical studies, Christian ministry, church history, Christian ethics, missiology, spirituality, religious studies, and other related interdisciplinary fields.

2. All submitted manuscripts must be original and free from plagiarism. Authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a similarity check using plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin, before submission. The Editorial Office will also perform an independent similarity screening to ensure the originality and academic integrity of every manuscript.

3. Upon submission, the Editorial Board will conduct an initial screening to evaluate the manuscript's conformity with the journal's scope, formatting requirements, author guidelines, and manuscript template. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary requirements may be returned to the authors without proceeding to the peer-review stage. Only manuscripts that meet the journal's editorial standards will be considered for further evaluation.

4. KENOSIS: Journal of Theology Studies implements a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area to ensure academic quality, objectivity, and fairness.

5. During the review process, reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including the quality and clarity of the title, abstract, introduction, theoretical framework, research methodology (where applicable), results and discussion, conclusion, originality, scholarly contribution, relevance to theological studies, and compliance with research ethics and academic integrity.

6. Reviewers provide recommendations to the Editor regarding the editorial decision, including acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Each recommendation should be accompanied by constructive comments and scholarly suggestions to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, well-reasoned, and evidence-based evaluations. In cases where substantial differences of opinion arise between reviewers and authors, the Editor and Editor-in-Chief may facilitate further discussion to ensure a fair and balanced editorial decision.

7. Editorial decisions are not determined solely by reviewers' recommendations or numerical evaluation scores. The Editor carefully considers the quality and strength of the reviewers' comments, the authors' responses to revision requests, and other relevant academic considerations before reaching a final decision. Throughout the editorial process, the Editorial Board remains committed to maintaining the scholarly quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal for the benefit of the academic community.

8. Under exceptional circumstances, particularly when reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations or when additional clarification is required, the Editor may invite further evaluation from the original reviewers or appoint an additional independent reviewer. Nevertheless, the Editorial Board seeks to ensure that the review process remains transparent, objective, efficient, and professionally conducted for all parties involved.