The editors of the HJ strive to ensure that our peer review process is rigorous, fair and constructive. In the interest of transparency we lay out below the general outlines of the process by which our submitted articles are reviewed.

Articles 

Article submissions are received by our Managing Editor who ensures that the articles are formatted according to our instructions, i.e. that they are anonymous, that their topics are post 1500, and that they are within acceptable range of our 10,000-word limit requirement. They are then assigned to one of the Editors (currently Drs. John Gallagher and Rachel Leow) following prescribed guidelines regarding subject and period that they have agreed. This allocation is done mostly to ensure an even distribution of workload between the Editors, rather than according to their field specialties. Indeed, the broad-ranging and non-specialist nature of HJ articles means that it would be impossible for either Editor to be reliably expert in all topics that cross their desks. This makes the peer review process especially critical, since the Editors rely greatly on the subject expertise of our reviewers. The role of the Editors is significant in other ways, since it is precisely as non-specialist historians that they represent the general readership of the HJ. We consider that it is precisely this combination of rigorous non-specialist editorial intervention, alongside deep subject expertise through the peer review process, which produces the kind of high quality scholarship suitable for general readership that we consider to be the HJ’s signal strength. In deciding on suitable reviewers, the Co-Editors also rely on the expertise and guidance available to them through the HJ Editorial Board, some of whom have themselves served as HJ Editors in the past, while others are themselves specialists in major fields of scholarship from which the HJ seeks to publish high quality work.

Although under past editorial leadership the HJ has tended to practice a liberal policy of obtaining peer reviews, in which any genuinely scholarly and historical article which seems journal-worthy will likely be sent for review, we are now moving towards a model of stronger editorial intervention at the point prior to peer review. We seek out experts across the world to review for us, and while we have an amazing rota of reviewers, we also recognize that peer review is a time- and labour-intensive endeavour if it is to be done well. Therefore we anticipate that going forward, the Co-Editors, advised by the Editorial Board, will play a larger role in assessing the suitability of an article for publication in the HJ prior to sending it out for review. 

Our criteria of suitability will include, though not be limited to:

• The quality of the writing, empirical work and findings of the article’s research;
• The extent to which the article’s topic does, or has the potential to, communicate that research to wider non-specialist audiences. Editors endeavour to work closely with our chosen authors to realize this potential. 
• The persuasiveness of the case made for why the article’s topic should matter to wider non-specialist audiences. This typically requires a rigorous situating of the article in a clear historiographical context and a clear case made for the article’s particular contribution. 

Book reviews and historiographical reviews 

Much of the above equally applies to the historiographical reviews, round tables, and other formats for book reviews that the HJ experiments with. Reviews are either commissioned, or submitted unsolicited in the same manner as research articles. Regardless of the process of acquiring the review, they are then sent out for peer review. As above, the reviews editor will exercise some discretion about seeking advice from the Editorial Board, as well as in the number of reviews necessary for a decision. 

Reviews should draw together both recent historical works and their position within a broader field, as well as indicating the potential direction of future scholarship. Reviews should ideally provide analysis, rather than purely a description of the state of the field. The exact ways that this is achieved will vary according to the format.

Appeals

To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Editor and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editor. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with this Editor.

Appeals should be based on rational arguments and should refer to a specific manuscript in question. New submissions take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time for the journal to reach a conclusion about your appeal.