Publication and Editorial Policies

Peer Review and Acceptance

The adopted criteria for all submissions are the quality and originality of the research and its relevance to the MST Review readership.

Review Process:

Step 1: Editorial Board Member’s Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to the journal will undergo a preliminary evaluation by the members of the Editorial Board to determine the suitability of the submission. Submitted manuscripts are to be evaluated based on several criteria, which may include but are not limited to:

    • Alignment of the topic to the scope of MST Review

    • A well-argued rationale for the study

    • A sound and clearly defined or presented methodology

    • Analytical rigor in the handling and interpretation of data

    • Coherence and organization of the manuscript

    • Contribution to scholarship and/or pastoral practice

Step 2: Independent Peer Review Process

After having passed the preliminary evaluation, the manuscript will be handled by the Managing Editor for the double-blind peer-review process. At least two experts in the particular field covered by the manuscript will be assigned to review it. The identities of the author/s and the reviewers are not to be disclosed, to satisfy the required double-blind review. The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on the topic’s relevance to mission and pastoral work, timeliness, and technical quality.

All article types (research article, research note, review article, creative essay, conference paper) will undergo a double-blind peer review process.

Peer reviewers are given one month to submit their evaluations to the Managing Editor. Authors are given 30 days for the required minor revisions and 60 days for major revisions.

In cases where reviewers arrive at contradicting evaluations, a third reviewer will be consulted to resolve the issue. The final decision will be rendered by the editor-in-chief who may also need to seek the advice of the other members of the Editorial Board.

The reviewers are prohibited to show the manuscript under review to another person nor use the information contained therein. To ensure unbiased review, manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board shall be reviewed by experts from outside their respective institutions.

The reviewers may render one of the following judgments:

    1. ACCEPTABLE content in present form. (will progress to publication)

    2. ACCEPTABLE, but advised to revise to address Minor concerns in the manuscript's content, no further review is needed

    3. ACCEPTABLE, but advised to revise to address Major concerns in the manuscript's content, further review needed

    4. REJECTED and returned to the author, but can be re-submitted after doing further work. Upon re-submission, the manuscript will undergo the same review process.

    5. REJECTED due to substantive, methodological, and technical flaws.

Manuscripts that have been recommended for revision are expected to provide detailed and comprehensive responses to the comments provided by the reviewers and/or editors. The MST Review reserves the right not to publish an accepted manuscript if the author fails to carry out requested revisions, promptly return a signed Copyright Agreement form, and/or comply with other journal requirements or instructions.

Accepted manuscripts are copy edited and are emailed to the corresponding authors for inspection. The copy edited and author-inspected version will be formatted for the publication.

The Copyright Agreement requires the corresponding author to formally agree, among others, that the manuscript is original and unpublished, has no plagiarized contents, and/or that the authors were not involved in any unethical practices related to the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The journal requires that all authors disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest. Any interest or relationship, financial or otherwise that might be perceived as influencing an author's objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest. These must be disclosed when directly relevant or directly related to the work that the authors describe in their manuscript.

Funding

Authors should list all sources of funding in the Acknowledgments section.

Authorship

Those listed as authors are:

    1. Those who made substantial contributions to the research conceptualization and design,

gathering of data, data analysis, and interpretation;

    2. Those who have been involved in drafting or revising the manuscript;

    3. Those who are responsible and accountable for the accuracy or integrity of any part of the

work.