Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

"Theological Reflections: Euro-Asian Journal of Theology" publishes scholarly articles by authors in the Evangelical tradition, who are connected to the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, for the purpose of supporting the development of the Evangelical theology in these countries and acquainting the contemporary Christian scholarship with theological thought in Eurasia. Its target audience is researchers, theologians, religious scholars, teachers, and students of evangelical theological colleges, seminaries, and theological faculties, as well as church leaders.


Section Policies


The section publishes original research articles, covering various aspects of theological studies. The articles should not exceed 7000-9000 words.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Critical reviews

In this section, the journal publishes critical reviews of current theological publications. Shorter reviews – 500 words, longer reviews – 1,000 words.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Журнал принимает к рассмотрению рецензии публикаций, относящихся к дисциплинарному полю богословия, библеистики, истории церкви и смежных областей науки и изданных не более, чем два года назад.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Conference materials

This section publishes articles based on theological conferences organized and conducted under the auspices of EAAA and EEIT

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

  • The journal publishes original scholarly articles, encompassing various aspects of theological studies, and critical reviews of relevant theological publications.
  • The journal uses a double blind peer review for its articles.
  • The review process usually takes not more than 30-40 days when an article is accepted for review.
  • Authors may expect three possible answers: approval of submission, approval of submission with minor/major revision, or rejection of submission.


Publication Frequency

The journal is issued twice a year.

The working flow chart is reflected in this scheme:



Open Access Policy

The journal provides open access to the electronic versions of the articles of new issues in six months after the issue was printed.


Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Relationships between authors, editors and reviewers in our journal are based on academic benevolence, objectivity of ratings and priority of scholarly quality. We are following the principles of Code of Conduct for Editors as defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular

1. Duties of Editor-in-chief, Issue Editor and Editorial Board

1.1. Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision concerning which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published without regard to race, gender, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Issue Editor, reviewers, or members of the Editorial Board can assist in making this decision. 

1.2. Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief, Issue Editor, or Editorial Board must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate.

1.3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The Editor-in-chief, Issue Editor, members of the Editorial Board, or reviewers must not use the unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Members of the Editorial Board should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships, or connections with any of the authors or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Members of the Editorial Board should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

1.4. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The Editor-in-Chief should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include delay of the publication until any doubt is clarified, contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. 

2. Duties of Reviewers

2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

2.2. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Issue Editor and excuse himself or herself from the review process.

2.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

2.4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 

2.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editorial Board's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

2.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

3. Duties of Authors

3.1. Reporting standards

Authors should present original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

3.2. Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

3.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

3.6. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

3.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

3.8. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


Issue Editor’s Checklist

The editor is required to check off the submission's compliance with all of the following items before sending it to the reviewers. Submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

  1. The submission includes the text of the article (introduction, main text, and conclusion), key words, abstract, reference list, and information about the author in the original language. Besides that, it includes an English translation of the abstract, key words, reference list, and information about the author and the author’s affiliation.
  2. The submission file is in Microsoft Word document file format.
  3. The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points rather than at the end.
  4. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which is found in “About the Journal.”


Writing an Abstract

What is an abstract?

An abstract is a succinct summary of a longer piece of work, usually academic in nature, which is published in isolation from the main text and should therefore stand on its own and be understandable without reference to the longer piece. It should report the latter's essential facts, and should not exaggerate or contain material that is not in the longer piece. Its purpose is to act as a reference tool, enabling the reader to decide whether or not to read the full text.

Instructions for writing an abstract

Each abstract is made up of a number of set elements. 

1. Write the abstract

To produce a structured abstract for the journal, please complete the following fields about your paper. There are four fields which are obligatory (Purpose, Design/methodology/approach, Findings and Originality/value); the other three (Research limitations/implications, Practical implications, and Social implications) may be omitted if they are not applicable to your paper.

Abstracts should contain no more than 250 words. Write concisely and clearly. The abstract should reflect only what appears in the original paper. 

Purpose. What are the reason(s) for writing the paper or the aims of the research? 

Design/methodology/approach. How are the objectives achieved? Include the main method(s) used for the research. What is the approach to the topic and what is the theoretical or subject scope of the paper? 

Findings. What was found in the course of the work? This will refer to analysis, discussion, or results. 

Research limitations/implications (if applicable). If research is reported on in the paper this section must be completed and should include suggestions for future research and any identified limitations in the research process. 

Practical implications (if applicable). What outcomes and implications for practice, applications, and consequences are identified? What impact will the research have on the church and ministry? What changes to practice should be made as a result of this research? Not all papers will have practical implications. 

Social implications (if applicable). What impact will this research have on society? How will it influence public attitudes? How will it influence the church’s social responsibility or environmental issues? How could it inform public policy? How might it affect quality of life? Not all papers will have social implications. 

Originality/value. What is new in the paper? State the value of the paper and to whom.  


Using keywords

Using keywords is a vital part of abstract writing, because of the practice of retrieving information electronically: keywords act as the search term. Use keywords that are specific, and that reflect what is essential about the paper. Put yourself in the position of someone researching in your field: what would you look for? Consider also whether you can use any of the current “buzzwords.”