The Journal Of Religion

---
name: the-journal-of-religion
description: Use when targeting The Journal of Religion or deciding whether a religious-studies manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, its argument/evidence bar, textual/comparative and constructive-analytic expectations, house style and review norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# The Journal of Religion (the-journal-of-religion)

## Journal positioning

The Journal of Religion, published by the University of Chicago Press, is a leading
generalist venue for the scholarly study of religion across traditions and methods,
publishing in theology, philosophy of religion, religious ethics, history of religions,
and religion and culture. Its defining breadth is that it welcomes **constructive,
analytic, and historical work alike** — a rigorous theological or philosophical argument,
a critical-historical study, or a methodological intervention — provided the contribution
is conceptually serious and addressed to the broad scholarly study of religion rather than
to a single confessional in-group. It is distinct from `history-of-religions`, whose center
of gravity is the comparative and historical-morphological method, and from
`harvard-theological-review`, with its textual, biblical, and early-Christian emphasis: The
Journal of Religion is the place where theology and the philosophy of religion sit alongside
historical and cultural study. Devotional, pastoral, or in-house confessional writing with
no scholarly argument is a poor fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing**
aid. It does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting,
re-check the live Journal of Religion author instructions.

## When to trigger

- The author names The Journal of Religion for a theology, philosophy-of-religion, ethics, or religion-and-culture manuscript and wants a fit/framing check.
- A constructive or analytic argument about religion must be framed for a broad scholarly (not confessional) readership.
- The author is choosing between The Journal of Religion and a comparative-historical or textual/biblical venue.
- The author needs the journal's argument bar and desk-reject heuristics.

## Scope & topic fit

- Constructive and systematic theology, and the philosophy of religion, treated argumentatively.
- Religious ethics and the moral analysis of religious traditions and practices.
- History of religions and the historical study of particular traditions, where the stake is conceptual.
- Religion and culture: religion in relation to literature, politics, society, and the arts.
- Method and theory in the study of religion, including the categories used to define "religion."
- Work that crosses traditions or sub-fields and speaks to the broad study of religion.

## Method & evidence bar

- The contribution is an **original, clearly stated argument** about a religious idea, text, tradition, or problem; description alone is not enough.
- Primary texts and sources are commanded directly — and, where the argument turns on them, in the original languages or with proper philological/historical control.
- Engagement with the relevant theological, philosophical, or historical scholarship is current, fair, and substantive.
- Methodological self-awareness is shown: the approach, its assumptions, and its limits are made explicit, especially across traditions.
- Claims are proportionate to the evidence and argument, and confessional commitments do not substitute for reasoned defense.

## Structure & house style

- Scholarly article with a sustained argument; defer exact length expectations and article types to the live guide.
- Chicago notes-and-bibliography style with full footnotes; re-check the current form on the live guide.
- Foreign-language and original-language sources are quoted and translated per the journal's policy; transliteration follows accepted conventions.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (remove self-identifying citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Prose is argument-driven and legible to scholars of religion outside the sub-field; technical and confessional vocabulary is explained where it bears weight.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the University of Chicago Press anchors, then cite the current Journal of Religion page you checked.
- Search the live site for "The Journal of Religion submission guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types, length expectations, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm Chicago notes-and-bibliography form and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check original-language quotation/transliteration and translation policy for non-English sources.
- Re-check prior-presentation/preprint, competing-interest, and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] There is a single, clearly stated, original argument addressed to the broad scholarly study of religion.
- [ ] Primary texts and sources are commanded directly, in the original languages where the argument depends on them.
- [ ] Engagement with the relevant theological, philosophical, or historical scholarship is current and fair.
- [ ] The method and its assumptions are made explicit, with claims proportionate to the evidence.
- [ ] The manuscript is anonymized and follows Chicago notes-and-bibliography style.
- [ ] Original-language quotations, transliterations, and translations follow the journal's policy.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- Devotional, pastoral, or confessional writing addressed to an in-group rather than a scholarly argument.
- Description or summary of a tradition or thinker with no original argument or stake.
- Thin engagement with the relevant scholarship, or claims out of proportion to the evidence.
- Reliance on translations or secondary sources where the argument requires command of the primary texts.
- Wrong venue: a strictly comparative-morphological study or a textual/biblical study better served elsewhere.

## Re-routing decision

- Comparative, cross-cultural, or historical-morphological study of traditions → `history-of-religions`.
- Textual, biblical, early-Christian, or rigorous philological-historical religious scholarship → `harvard-theological-review`.
- Argument that is primarily analytic philosophy of religion with a general philosophical stake → `the-philosophical-review`.
- Religion treated as part of a broad historical argument across fields → `the-american-historical-review`.
- Religion-and-literature or religion-and-culture argument with a literary-critical center → `pmla` or `critical-inquiry`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] The Journal of Religion
[Field/tradition] <theology / philosophy of religion / ethics / history of religions / religion & culture; tradition>
[Argument] <the contribution in one line — the claim and its stake>
[Sources/method] <does the command of primary texts + scholarship + method clear the journal's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / Chicago style / anonymization / original-language & translation policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```