Journal Peer-Review and Article Acceptance Process

The "Journal of Historical Sciences Studies" is committed to international publishing standards, operating on the principles of peer review and open access. Accordingly, the journal employs a double-blind peer-review process. This means neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities, ensuring that the review is conducted scientifically, free from any bias or prejudice.

Submitted manuscripts that align with the journal's specialized scope and meet its basic standards are sent for review. Upon final approval by the Editor-in-Chief, the article enters the publication process. The journal adheres to the highest standards of peer review and follows the rules, policies, and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The detailed process is as follows:

1. Article Submission via Journal Website: The article is submitted through the journal's website, and an acknowledgment of receipt is sent.

2. Assignment to Editorial Board: The article is forwarded to members of the Editorial Board or a specialized section editor.

3. Editorial Board Review: The article is reviewed in an Editorial Board meeting. The outcome can be:

   • a. Rejection by the Editorial Board: Due to low priority for the journal.

   • b. Non-compliance: Lack of alignment with the journal's content and scope.

   • c. Low Quality: Etc. The reasons for rejection are communicated to the author.

4. Initial Revisions (Pre-Review): If the board conditionally approves, the authors are provided with initial revisions to apply before the article is sent for formal peer review.

5. Dispatching to Reviewers: The article is sent to a minimum of 2 to 3 reviewers.

6. Receiving Review Results: The reviewers' recommendations fall into three categories:

   • a. Negative (Reject)

   • b. Positive (Accept)

   • c. Revisions Required

7. Editorial Decision on Reviews: The Editorial Board examines the reviews and makes a decision, which can be:

   • a. Reject the Article: Due to negative reviews (e.g., two rejections).

   • b. Send to a Third Reviewer: In case of conflicting reviews (e.g., one reject and one revision).

   • c. Send to Author for Revisions: If revisions are required (e.g., two "revisions required").

8. Receiving Revisions from Authors: The authors submit the revised manuscript.

9. Sending Revisions to Reviewers: The revised version is sent back to the original reviewers for assessment, leading to three possible outcomes:

   • a. Revisions Rejected

   • b. Accepted

   • c. Further Revisions Required
     The journal then acts as follows:

   • If further revisions are needed, the manuscript is returned to the authors.

   • If all revisions are satisfactorily addressed, the article is Accepted.

   • If the revisions are not made in line with the reviewers' feedback, the article is Rejected.

Flowchart: Article Submission to the Journal of Historical Sciences Studies

The flowchart below visually summarizes the peer-review process described above.

 

This structured and transparent process ensures that all published articles meet the high scientific and ethical standards of the journal.