Peer Review Policy
Review model
The journal follows double-anonymous peer review. The identity of the author and the identity of the reviewer are each hidden from the other. Research articles, review articles, textual studies and major case studies receive at least two independent reviewers.
At least one reviewer is normally external to the editorial team, and wherever possible both are external. A third reviewer is invited where the two reports diverge sharply.
Book reviews, editorials and invited notes receive editorial review rather than external peer review. The category of each article is shown on its page, so readers can see which process it received.
What reviewers assess
- Fit to the scope of the journal
- Originality and contribution to knowledge
- Accuracy and responsible interpretation of primary and secondary sources
- Suitability of method for the discipline or textual tradition
- Coherence of argument and quality of evidence
- Respectful representation of tradition without unsupported exaggeration
- Evidential support for modern scientific or social claims
- Clarity of language, and any ethical concerns
Indicative timelines
- Acknowledgement of submission — 3 working days
- Desk review — 14 working days
- Reviewer response to invitation — 5 days
- Completion of review — 21 days
- First decision after reports received — 7 working days
- Submission to acceptance, with one revision — 12 to 16 weeks
Decisions
After review the handling editor may accept the submission, request revisions, open a new round of review, or decline the submission. Where revisions are requested, the decision letter states whether the changes required are minor or substantial, and whether the manuscript will return to reviewers.
No article is promised acceptance before review.