Peer Review Process
1. All manuscripts submitted for publication are to meet fixed formal requirements to published materials (see Manuscript preparation requirements).
2. All manuscripts submitted for publication in “Historia provinciae – the journal of local history” are subject to peer-review.
3. Once a manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief assigns it to the Editor responsible for the respective topic or to an external reviewer (Ph.D. or D.Sc.) who has the necessary subject expertise and publications on the subject of the reviewed article.
4. The terms of the reviewing procedure in each case are determined by Editor-in-Chief. The time-frame for reviewing is 2 months.
5. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are private property of the authors and are confidential.
6. The Journal uses double-blind peer-review system (authors and reviewers are not aware of each other’s names, positions or affiliation).
7. The following items are covered in a review: scientific significance of the paper, personal contribution of the authors to the development of the topic stated in the article, how clear the data is stated, whether the conclusions drawn and findings correspond to received data, language or style of statement and terminology.
8. All the reviews necessarily contain the following items (see Peer Review Form):
- General description of the article.
- Summary of the essential points discussed in the paper.
- Whether the issues discussed in the article are appropriate for the Journal.
- Scientific novelty of the issues discussed in the article.
- Evaluation of the content and structure of the manuscript.
- Compliance of the article with the Manuscript preparation requirements.
- If the paper is recommended without revision/ recommended after revision/ not recommended for publication in the journal.
9. After the reviewing process the editorial board informs authors about the decision by e-mail. The review may be sent to the authors on demand.
10. Reviewer may recommend to publish a paper (with revision if required) or reject the publication.
11. If reviewer recommends to publish a manuscript with revision, it is returned to the author. In this case, the submission date is considered the date when the Editorial Office receives the revised manuscript.
12. The board does not accept rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation. The review on the rejected paper is sent to the author by e-mail.
13. Positive referee report isn’t sufficient reason for publication of the article. The final decision on publication is taken by Editor-in-Chief or editorial board of the Journal.