Review Structures by Program Level

Undergraduate (Capstone/Senior Thesis)

• • Evaluation: Assessed by the course instructor using a program-approved rubric; Program Director provides final academic sign‑off.
• • Optional Honors External Read: Select projects may receive an external reader for additional scholarly validation.

Master’s Thesis

• • Evaluation: Supervised by a Thesis Chair/Advisor and reviewed by one qualified reviewer external to the advising relationship (internal or external to Eldermont).
• • Escalation: A second reviewer may be added for advanced methods or specialized theological/ethical topics.

Doctoral Dissertation

• • Evaluation: Led by a Dissertation Chair (non‑scoring coordinator) and reviewed by two qualified Christian reviewers who render independent written evaluations.
• • Faith Credential: At least one reviewer holds a DMin/ThD or comparable faith‑focused doctorate to ensure robust theological/ethical integration when relevant to the topic.

Reviewer Qualifications & Alignment

• • Earned doctorate in a relevant field (PhD, EdD, DBA, DMin, ThD, PsyD, etc.).
• • Practicing Christian with alignment to Eldermont’s Statement of Faith.
• • Demonstrated scholarly experience (publications, supervision, or equivalent professional expertise).
• • Commitment to impartiality, confidentiality, and constructive critique.

Integrity, Ethics, and Compliance

• • Academic Integrity: All submissions are screened for originality and proper citation.
• • Human‑Subjects Research: Projects involving people or sensitive data follow institutional review procedures before data collection.
• • Confidentiality & Conflicts: Reviewers certify confidentiality and disclose potential conflicts prior to assignment; alternative reviewers are appointed when conflicts arise.

The Review Process

1. 1. Submission Readiness: Manuscripts meet formatting and documentation standards prior to review.
2. 2. Independent Review: Reviewers complete a structured rubric and narrative report addressing purpose, literature grounding, method, analysis, ethics/faith integration, and contribution.
3. 3. Synthesis & Decision: The Chair (or Program Director for undergraduate projects) consolidates feedback and issues a written decision: approve, approve with revisions, or major revision and resubmission.
4. 4. Revision & Verification: Students address required changes; the Chair verifies completion and, when needed, consults the reviewer(s).
5. 5. Archiving: Approved works are archived according to program policy (with embargo options when appropriate).

Timelines: Standard turnaround for an initial review cycle is 14–21 days. Programs publish milestone calendars each term.

Accessibility & Student Support

Eldermont provides reasonable accommodations for qualified students with documented needs. Writing and research support services are available throughout the project lifecycle.

Appeals and Clarifications

Students may request clarification on reviewer feedback through their Chair/Advisor. Formal appeals follow Academic Affairs procedures and focus on process fairness and rubric application.

Contact: Academic Affairs | academic.affairs@eldermont.com

Statement of Faith: Available on the Eldermont University website.