Overview

A quality review process and a viable review policy ensures the quality of manuscripts published in a research journal. We believe in good practices of reviewing manuscripts by experts in a relevant field of History. By engaging two independent reviewers, the Editorial Office undertakes a double-blind peer-review for each manuscript. In exceptional cases, the authors may be asked to nominate potential reviewer/s on the request of the Editor or Associate Editor of the journal. This is initiated only for a review of manuscripts for which the journal could not avail of the relevant reviewers and has to seek assistance from the authors. Nevertheless, the Editorial Office is not bound to forward a manuscript to the nominated reviewers.

       In such a case, the Editorial Office will make sure that there is no conflict of interests before approving the nominated reviewer/s. The reviewers are requested to disclose any conflict of interests before reviewing the manuscripts. On the other hand, authors are allowed to suggest specific reviewer/s for the consideration to exclude them from reviewing the manuscript at the time of submission.

Review Process in Brief

All manuscripts are subject to a thorough peer-review process. Initially, the Editorial Office scrutinizes a manuscript to assess the minimum acceptable standard of the manuscript and to evaluate if it fits in with the scope of the journal. The Editor or one of the Associate Editors then allocates two reviewers to a manuscript who are expected to provide review reports within four weeks as per the criteria laid out in the evaluation proforma. The recommendation and reports of reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author if required, and the author may submit the revised version of the manuscript. The second round of review may be undertaken by the reviewer/s, if suggested by the Editor or Associate Editor. In the initial review, the reviewers are asked, “Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?”. The revised manuscript is reviewed by the Editor, one of the Associate Editors or Members of the Editorial Board if the reviewer/s did not show his/her willingness to review it again. Finally, the decision of publication is made by the Editor after all the requirements are met by the corresponding author, reviewers, and the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office may reject a manuscript after the submission if it is substantially plagiarized.

Further Considerations

The reviewers are requested to assess the quality of the manuscript and convey their decision to the Editorial Office. The reviewers give their recommendations in terms of acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Thus, they provide a strong recommendation for the possibility of publication of a manuscript along with a review report.

    The reviewers have the right to accept or regret writing of a review for the assigned manuscript based on their availability, required time, and expertise in the area of a manuscript. In case of their interest in reviewing a manuscript later, they may be given an extension in time or alternative reviewer/s may be suggested by the invited reviewer/s, if possible.

         They are requested to evaluate the manuscript following the pre-determined parameters of a quality manuscript, such as implications for the research, structure and presentation, originality, proficiency of English language, scientific rigor, and contribution of the research to a particular field of social sciences and humanities. Besides, the reviewers may give their comments on relevance to the scope of the journal, methods, data sources and modes of inquiry, cross-disciplinary perspectives, International significance, scholarly quality, and conceptual or theoretical framework.

        The Editor expects from the reviewers to provide review reports at their earliest, four weeks at the maximum. In case of extraordinary delay, we may allow them to suggest alternative reviewers if they have certain limitations.