Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

1. A manuscript is accepted for consideration only on condition that it meets the requirements of Manuscript Submission Guidelines.

2. All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office of ‘Historia Provinciae – the Journal of Regional History’ are subject to peer-review.

3. A manuscript submitted to the journal is sent for review to one of the members of the Editorial Board or to an independent reviewer who has a doctorate degree (Doctor of Sciences, Candidate of Science or PhD), is an expert in and has published works on the subject of the manuscript under review.

4. The length of review period for each manuscript is defined by the editor. The maximum time taken for reviewing is 2 months. 

5. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts under review are private property of the authors and are considered as information not subject to disclosure.

6. Reviewing is confidential. The Journal uses double-blind peer-review system. A manuscript is sent for review without any indication of the author’s identity. The review, in its turn, is sent to the author without any indication of the reviewer’s identity.

7. The review assesses theoretical and practical significance of the research, personal contribution of the author to the solution of the problem under study, scientific rigour of the material presented, credibility and validity of the results obtained, coherence and clarity of the text, adherence to language and style standards.

8. All reviews must contain the following: (see Peer Review Form):

- general appraisal of the manuscript;

- general appraisal of the problems considered in the manuscript;

- compliance of the problems considered in the manuscript with the subject matter of a section of the journal;

- topicality of the problems considered in the manuscript;

- general description and evaluation of the contents of the manuscript;

- remarks on arranging, presenting and formatting the material;

- conclusion on suitability of the manuscript under review for publication in the journal.

9. The editorial Office informs the author of the manuscript about the conclusion of the reviewer by e-mail. The author is afforded an opportunity to read the review.

10. The reviewer may recommend the manuscript for publication, recommend the manuscript for publication after revision or reject the manuscript.

11. If the review indicates that the article should be revised, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision. In that case the submission date shall be the date when the Editorial Office receives the revised manuscript.

12. The manuscript rejected by the reviewer is not accepted for reconsideration. The review of the rejected manuscript is sent to the author by e-mail.

13. A positive review is not a sufficient reason for publishing the article. The final decision on publication is taken by the Editor-in-Chief or, if necessary, by the Editorial Board of the journal.