Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

1. An article is accepted for publication only if it meets the formal requirements for the materials to be published (see Acceptance Criteria).

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, either Kandidat Nauk (PhD) or a Doctor of Sciences (Grand PhD), who has the necessary subject expertise and publications on the subject related to the reviewed article.

4. The length of the reviewing procedure in each specific case is determined by the responsible editors of the journal. The maximum time-frame for reviewing is two months.

5. The reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are confidential.

6. The journal uses double-blind peer-review system (the authors and the reviewers are not aware of each other’s names, job titles or affiliation).

7. The following items are covered in the review: scientific significance of the paper, personal contribution of the authors to the development of the topic stated in the article, the scientific rigour of the presented material, veracity and validity of conclusion, language and style, logic and terminology.

8. All the reviews routinely reflect on the following (see Peer Review Form):

·         The general characteristic of the article.

·         The general characteristic of the range of problems discussed in the article.

·         Correspondence of the problematics of the article to the range of problems typically discussed in the relevant section of the journal.

·         The topicality of the issues discussed in the article.

·         Evaluation of the content and structure of the manuscript.

·         Compliance of the article with the Manuscript Submission Guidelines.

·         Conclusion on the possibility for publication in the journal: without revision/ recommended after revision/ not recommended for publication in the journal.

9. After the reviewing process, the Editorial Board informs the authors about the decision by e-mail, whereby the author(s) has a possibility to familiarize themselves with the review.

10. The reviewer may recommend publishing the article (with revision if required) or reject the publication.

11. If the reviewer recommends publishing the manuscript with revision, it is returned to the author. In this case, the submission date is considered to be the date when the Editorial Board receives the revised manuscript.

12. The rejected manuscripts are not accepted for re-evaluation. The review on the rejected paper is sent to the author by e-mail.

13. Having a positive review would not be a sufficient ground for publication of the article. The final decision on publication is taken by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board of the journal.