Policies

Questions about our peer-review policies?
PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Historical Encounters strives to maintain a high academic quality, and utilises a "double blind" peer review process where the anonymity of both authors and reviewers is maintained throughout and beyond the peer review process. It should be noted, that despite all efforts of the editorial team, it may still be possible for a reviewer to discern an author's identity by the nature of the content, or writing style, given the specialised nature of the field.

 

Each submission is initially examined by the section editor to determine if it fits within the scope of the journal. Submissions which are deemed appropriate to the scope of the journal will then be anonymised and distributed to reviewers for blind appraisal. The reviewers are selected based on their competence in the specific field with which the submission deals, or based on their solid general competence within the wider field of historical consciousness, historical cultures, or history education.

 

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of submissions using the following criteria:

  • Scholarliness: The conceptual, theoretical, or methodological depth and rigor of the manuscript; and the appropriateness of its claims.

  • Significance: The degree to which the manuscript contributes to new knowledge or new perspectives within the field of study.

  • Style and Quality: The style and quality of the writing itself. The writing should be appropriate for an international audience. Tone may vary from a formal, academic style to a more informal style, depending on the nature of the material. Authors should adopt a respectful and fair-minded approach when discussing the work of others, and this should be evident in the tone of the writing.

The Editors rely heavily on the judgements of reviewers, but are not bound by them. The Editor's decision about publication, revision, or rejection is final. Appeals to an editor's decision will only be received on specific grounds. See our Appeals Policy for more information.

Possible Reasons for Rejection of a Manuscript

Some of the common reasons manuscripts are rejected include:

  1. The author has submitted their paper to the wrong journal: it doesn’t fit the Aims & Scope or fails to engage with issues addressed by the journal.

  2. The manuscript is not a true journal article, for instance it is too journalistic or clearly a thesis chapter.

  3. The manuscript is too long or too short.

  4. There is poor regard of the journal’s conventions, or for academic writing in general.

  5. Poor style, grammar, punctuation or English throughout the manuscript.

  6. The manuscript does not make any new contribution to the subject.

  7. The research has not been properly contextualized.

  8. There is a poor theoretical framework used.

  9. The manuscript is poorly presented.

  10. The manuscript is libelous or unethical.