The Anglican Theological Review is committed to creative engagement with Christian tradition, and to interdisciplinary inquiry that includes philosophy, science, and literature and the arts. We are happy to consider articles that pertain to any of the classical disciplines of theological study, and particularly encourage authors to submit work that speaks to current issues and debates.On this page you will find instructions for submitting and formatting an article or poem and special guidelines for book reviews.
Download our Complete Information for Authors PDF for article style sheets.
Submitting Articles | Submitting Poems | Style Sheet (PDF)
Submitting Articles
Manuscripts must be submitted through the SAGE Track website: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/atrev
Submissions must be accompanied by:
1. an abstract between 100 and 150 words in length,
2. a brief biographical statement,
3. a current curriculum vitae, and
4. five to seven keywords pertaining to the subject of the article.
Manuscripts for the “Articles” section should be between 7,000 and 8,000 words in length (including footnotes). Manuscripts for the “Practicing Theology” section should be between 3,000 and 4,000 words in length (including footnotes).
Submitting Poems
The ATR has a longstanding commitment to publishing poetry alongside its academic articles and reviews, and to reviewing collections of poetry. We recognize the important contribution of poets to Anglican theological discourse, from the sixteenth century to the present day. We print the work of established poets with numerous publications alongside that of emerging poets. We are happy to have published Mark Jarman, Andrew Hudgins, Jeanne Murray-Walker, Peter Cooley, Luci Shaw, and Shane McCrae, among many other fine poets. The ATR seeks poetry that explores the contours of faith, doubt, and devotion, aspects of Christian spirituality, or larger questions of meaning. The poetry published in our pages uses fresh and evocative imagery, is attentive to the sound of language, and is attuned to the work of contemporary poets as well as past masters of religion and literature.
We do not publish poetry that is archaic in language, saccharine in devotion, or didactic in theology. Poems that make use of traditional forms in inventive and surprising ways are welcome.
Please submit previously unpublished work. Do not submit poetry written by, or with the
assistance of, Artificial Intelligence (AI).
We accept poetry submissions via Duosuma. Click here to be taken to the Duosuma site.
Include a brief cover letter and bio.
-In Duosuma, please submit up to 6 previously unpublished poems as Word docs or PDFs.
-Simultaneous submissions are acceptable, as long as you notify us immediately of a submitted poem’s acceptance elsewhere. A note on simultaneous submissions: when submitting multiple poems in Duosuma, please upload each poem as a separate file. This is the only way to withdraw individual poems from within a larger submission. (In other words, if you put all the poems in one file and then wish to withdraw one poem, Duosuma will withdraw the entire file.)
If you wish to review collections of poetry for the ATR, please email Regina Walton, Poetry Editor, at poetry@anglicantheologicalreview.org.
Guidelines for Contributors:
Authors must never take credit for work that’s not their own. Taking sentences of text from a generative AI tool and presenting them as your own words is plagiarism—at least, insofar as we take plagiarism to be a form of intellectual dishonesty in which one takes credit for work that’s not one’s own. Using generative AI to come up with a list of objections to a thesis or argument and presenting them as your own is also plagiarism. Consequently, authors who use text, images, or other content generated by an AI in their submission must be transparent about this, disclosing which tools were used and how. In cases where an original human source cannot be identified, authors should, then, include something like the following note: “I first became aware of this objection through the use of ChatGPT, OpenAI, April 16, 2025, https://chat.openai.com/chat.”
It’s important not only that authors avoid taking credit for work that is not their own but also that they give credit where credit is due. The problem with merely citing an AI tool—say, as the source of an example or objection—is that the AI tool may not be the original source. The original source may instead be an author whose work was used to train that AI tool. Thus, attributing some example or objection to ChatGPT could be just as problematic as attributing an objection to your colleague when all they did was tell you about some objection that Rawls raised. Thus, authors may need to track down the original source of an example or objection generated by an AI tool and cite it.
The editors of Ethics value human creativity; we, therefore, value work that presents the author’s own original ideas and insights more than work that presents ideas and insights that don’t originate with the author. For this reason, content that does not originate with the author may be deemed less desirable and publishable—at least, other things being equal.