Submit a Book Review

Guidelines for Book Reviewers

The ISCAST Journal is a double-blind peer reviewed publication that welcomes contributions from established and emerging scholars, national and international. Operating for almost thirty years, we are pleased to announce the launch of the journal’s new series in early 2022 as an entirely online and open-access outlet.

Christian Perspectives on Science and Technology provides a forum for discussing the interaction of science, technology, and the Christian faith and life. The journal welcomes articles exploring the nexus of science/technology and Christian ethics/spirituality/theology, as well as analyses of the history of science and faith.

In order for a submission to CPOSAT to be considered for review, an article should contribute to the ISCAST mission of promoting constructive conversation between Christian faith and the sciences. To that end, articles should show a connection, demonstrated in the article and mentioned in the abstract, between the substance of the article and some aspect of Christian theology or practice.


  • Reviews should be around 800 to 1000 words.
  • Readership at ISCAST includes scientists from many and varied disciplines: philosophers, theologians, scholars and practitioners of religion, and non-academics. Because a specialist in one discipline is usually not a specialist in another, your review should translate technical language into plain English and should not assume highly specialised knowledge.
  • At the end of your review, please provide your name and email address, and, if relevant, your professional title and institutional affiliation.
  • Submit one file as an MS Word document.
  • ISCAST’s desired timeframe for solicited reviews is two to four months, but if you require more time please do not hesitate to contact us:


  • ISCAST uses the Chicago Manual of Style, which you may be able to access via an institutional library, and, for biblical material not covered by CMOS, The SBL Handbook of Style.
  • Double quotation marks should be used for all quotations and “scare quotes,” single quotation marks being reserved for quotes within quotes.
  • References to pages in the reviewed book should be as follows: “Various examples (pp. 22–24) support the argument.”
  • If citing other works, please include author, title, and publication details parenthetically in the body of the review. Footnotes and endnotes should not be used.
  • The following style should be used for biblical references: e.g., 1 John 1:8–10, Ps 22:9f., 2 Tim 1:8, 12ff.; 2:14.
  • Please do not include block quotations; however shorter quotations are appropriate.

Content and tone

Please avoid a polemical tone and rejection of the work outright. Instead, aim for fairness, objectivity, balance, and appropriate criticism. Avoid a personal critique of the author but rather aim for a review of this particular work. It is not necessary to identify small grammatical or typographical errors. 

Please include the following publication details:

  • Full book title including subtitle
  • by author(s) or editor(s)
  • Publisher: place of publication, date of publication
  • ISBN-13, number of pages, edition, hard or paperback
  • Currency and price

In your review, it would be ideal to include the following:

  • Briefly give the author’s background and professional position.
  • Specify the intended readership of the book. Is it written for academics or non-academics, for philosophers, theologians, scientists? Is more specificity required; for example, is it for mathematicians? Who would benefit from reading it?
  • You might comment on the author’s writing style (e.g., forensic, commentary, engaging, stimulating, confusing, ambiguous, dense).
    Does the style suit the intended audience?
  • Include a summary of the contents of the book: perhaps chapter titles, subjects covered, etc.
  • Outline the major arguments, themes, or theses. Is there a central claim?
    Is it clear, original, controversial, uninspired, or imitative etc.?
  • How well does the author develop the major areas or points in the book? Are there obvious gaps? Point out specific deficiencies in the argument as well as good qualities; for example, note valuable insights and perhaps unexpectedly bold conclusions.
  • Consider how the book fits or does not fit in its field of study and whether or not it is original.
  • In a one or two-sentence conclusion, state whether you recommend this book and for what reasons.

Please send reviews to