Review process

Article reviewing guidelines

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the Historical Ethnology journal undergo the procedure of double blind peer review and approval at the editorial board.

Initially, it is verified whether or not the manuscript falls within the remit of the journal and meets the formal requirements. In the event of the paper’s incompatibility, the article is not accepted for consideration and a notification is sent to the author.

Members of the journal’s editorial board and third party reviewers who have a Candidate of Science or Doctor of Science degree and are acknowledged specialists in the field of reviewed papers are involved in the procedure of reviewing.

The reviewing procedure ensures anonymity of both the reviewer and the author (double blind peer review).

The editorial board considers submitted review at a meeting and makes one of the following decisions:

  • recommend a paper for publication without revisions;
  • return the paper to the author for revisions following the reviewer’s remarks;
  • send a submission for an additional review;
  • reject a submission (grounds for making such a decision must be listed).

A positive review is not always a sufficient cause to recommend a paper for publication. The final decision is made by the editorial board. In certain complicated cases it is the editor-in-chief who renders the decision.

The author is notified about the editorial board’s decision via email. If the review suggests recommendations for a paper revision, the journal’s editorial staff sends the review text to the author with a request to take into account the reviewer’s feedback when working on a revised paper or, in case the author disagrees with the listed  criticisms (partially or fully), write a well-reasoned response. The follow-up revision should be accomplished within two weeks since the date of the notification email.

Upon receiving a favourable conclusion from the editorial board, the paper is placed in the “portfolio” of the editorial office for further publication. Articles are published in order of priority or in compliance with the issue subject matter.

Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for five years.

Principles of reviewing

When reviewing submitted materials,  the editorial board, editorial stuff and reviewers are guided by the following criteria:

  • relevance of the study topic, its compatibility with the journal’s scope;
  • originality, scientific novelty, the author’s contribution to the academic field / discussion;
  • theoretical justification of the topic, in-depth study of literature and sources on the subject matter;
  • general scientific level of the article, authenticity of data and conclusions;
  • coherence and logic of argumentation;

compliance with the text style requirements and bibliography guidelines. Read more: Article Style Guidelines.