Peer Review Policy

SJKS follows a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed during review.

Review Process

Each submission first undergoes an editorial screening to assess:

  • Relevance to the Journal’s scope;
  • Consistency between the article and its Lens Statement;
  • Clarity of the research method or framework; and
  • Completeness of ethics and consent requirements, where applicable.

Submissions that proceed to peer review are normally assessed by two external reviewers:

  • A Specialist Reviewer with expertise in the relevant field, tradition or source language; and
  • A Cross-Disciplinary Reviewer who assesses the clarity and broader scholarly relevance of the argument.

Where needed, the Journal may seek additional expertise in Language, Methodology or Community Knowledge.

Academic Neutrality

SJKS evaluates submissions on the basis of their method, evidence and argument, not on the tradition, civilisation or position they study, support or critique.

No civilisation, discipline or paradigm is treated as the default standard. Authors and reviewers are expected to make their analytical framework clear rather than present one framework as inherently neutral.

Rule of the Declared Standard

To ensure fair and transparent evaluation, authors should clearly state the standard used to assess a knowledge system.

A claim may be evaluated by:

  • Internal Standards — the system’s own criteria;
  • External Standards — criteria drawn from another framework or field; or
  • Both, where appropriate.

Authors should explain why the chosen standard is suitable for the question being examined.

Review Criteria

Reviewers consider whether the submission demonstrates:

  • Primary-Source Grounding
  • Terminological Precision
  • Declared Methodology
  • Fair Engagement with the Strongest Counter-Position
  • An Appropriate Lens Statement
  • Analytical rather than Devotional or Polemical Writing
  • Reproducibility and Documentation, where relevant
  • Research Ethics
  • Neutrality and Open Dialogue

Reviewers assess these criteria as Met, Partly Met or Not Met, with reasons. Primary-source grounding, declared methodology and research ethics are treated as fundamental requirements.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Assess the submission on the basis of its method, evidence and argument;
  • Declare any relevant conflicts of interest;
  • Engage fairly with the author’s position and evidence;
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process; and
  • Avoid uploading confidential manuscripts or review material to external automated or generative-AI systems.

Editorial decisions are Accept, Revise or Reject. Substantially revised manuscripts may be returned for further review.