Another look on the peer review process
The objective of this essay is to elaborate on the editorial published in the present issue, which addresses the peer-review process used by scientific journals. This text consists of three parts. The first sets out to briefly explain some of the precautions that can be taken to avoid rendering the content of a paper on miracles completely unacceptable for publication in journals said to study religions. In the second part, we present peer reviews from eight different journals that refused to publish the article in question, while identifying them in order with the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. In response to the evaluations, the third section presents some additional thoughts on the peer-review process employed in the submission of scientific papers.