Review process

Regulations of reviewing articles in Historical Ethnology journal

  1. All manuscripts submitted for publication in the Historical Ethnology journal undergo a procedure of review and approval at the editorial board.
  2. Initially, it is verified whether or not the manuscript falls within the remit of the journal and meets the formal requirements. If the paper is irrelevant to the journal’s remit, the article is not accepted for consideration and the author is notified about that.
  3. Following that, the article is assigned for evaluation to a reviewer who is selected from the editorial board members (internal review). The article can also be submitted for evaluation to an independent expert (peer review).
  4. The review procedure ensures anonymity both for the reviewer and the author (double blind peer review).
  5. Based on the results of peer-review, the article may be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for publication.
  6. Upon receiving a favorable conclusion from the reviewer, the paper is placed in the “portfolio” of the editorial board for further publication. Articles are published in order of priority or in compliance with the issue subject matter.
  7. Upon receiving an unfavorable verdict of the reviewer, the article is considered at a session of the editorial working group, which is to make a decision on whether the paper should be rejected and whether it is necessary to obtain a further review from an independent expert.
  8. If the article is deemed unsuitable for publication, a reasoned rejection is sent to the article author via e-mail.
  9. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and the editorial office for five years.