Peer Review Process

The journal Historical Thought applies the principle of double-blind peer review, which implies hiding the identity of authors and reviewers during and after the peer review process.
After receiving the contribution, the editor-in-chief selects appropriate reviewers (at least two), who must not be from the same institution as the author. Reviewers must be experts in the field from which the work was submitted (archaeology, history and related sciences), and must have a doctorate degree.
The editor-in-chief does not reveal the author's identity to the reviewer. Also, during and after the review process, the editor-in-chief does not reveal the identities of the reviewers to the author.
In order for the paper to be published, it must receive two positive reviews. The reviewers evaluate the paper according to the categories: original scientific paper, overview paper, professional paper, previous announcement.
After completing the review process, the reviewer suggests: the text to be published in its original form; the text to be published after the proposed corrections; the text not to be published, because it does not meet the minimum scientific criteria. If the reviewer chooses the second option, he has the right to ask the editor-in-chief to inspect the work after the author's corrections.
If the evaluations of two reviewers do not differ to a great extent (e.g. one reviewer evaluates that the author has written a paper that corresponds to the original scientific paper in terms of categorization, while the other reviewer evaluates the work as a review paper, the Editorial Board will go in favor of the author and respect the greater rating.
If the evaluations of two reviewers differ significantly (e.g. one reviewer evaluates that the author has written a paper that corresponds to the original scientific paper in terms of categorization, while the other reviewer evaluated the work as a professional paper, the paper will be sent for a third anonymous review by an expert from the same field).
If the assessments of two reviewers differ significantly (e.g. one reviewer assesses that the author has written a paper that meets the criteria for publication in a scientific journal, while the other reviewer assesses that the paper does not meet the criteria for publication, the paper will be sent for a third anonymous review by an expert from the same area).
If both reviewers judge that the work does not meet the criteria for publication, the author will be informed that the work will not be published.
As a rule, reviewers submit a review within 15 to 30 days in a form provided by the editor-in-chief or the technical secretary of the Journal.