logo

Peer Review Policy and Process

The Historian, published by the Department of History, Government College University (GCU) Lahore, adheres to a rigorous, objective, and transparent peer review process. Our procedures follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.

  1. Triple-Blind Review Model

To ensure maximum impartiality, The Historian employs a triple-blind peer review system.

  • Anonymity: The identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers, the identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, and the identities of both are hidden from the handling editor during the evaluation phase.
  • Objective: This model minimizes unconscious bias regarding gender, seniority, reputation, or institutional affiliation.
  1. Reviewer Selection and Composition

Manuscripts are evaluated by a panel of experts selected for their subject matter expertise and publication record.

  • Composition: Each manuscript is evaluated by three referees:
    • Two National Experts (within Pakistan).
    • One International Scholar (from a scientifically advanced country).
  • Scope of Expertise: Reviewers are drawn from fields including social, political, economic, and cultural history, as well as area studies (South Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.).
  1. Submission and Desk Review (Initial Screening)

Upon submission via the journal’s online system, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary technical assessment by the editorial office.

  • Compliance: Checks for adherence to formatting (Times New Roman, 12pt, Chicago Manual of Style).
  • Plagiarism Screening: All submissions are screened using Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 19% (excluding references) are immediately rejected.
  • AI Detection: The journal does not enforce a rigid threshold for "AI probability" or "AI content" scores. Decisions regarding manuscript integrity are based on a holistic editorial assessment of the content's validity and flow, rather than automated detection percentages alone.
  1. The Review Process

Once a manuscript passes the desk review, it is assigned to the three reviewers.

  • Timeline: Reviewers are expected to accept the invitation within 5 days and complete their review within 3 weeks.
  • Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
    • Originality and theoretical contribution.
    • Methodological rigour and use of primary/secondary sources.
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope (e.g., historical intersections with social sciences).
    • Clarity of argument and writing quality.

Fast-Track Review (Optional): Authors opting for the Fast-Track service receive an initial editorial decision within 7–10 working days. This expedites the administrative handling but does not alter the rigorous triple-blind evaluation criteria.

  1. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are bound by strict ethical guidelines:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts must not be shared or discussed with third parties.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline the assignment if they have any personal, financial, or institutional connection to the work.
  1. Decisions and Revisions

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is publication-ready.
  • Minor Revisions: The author must address specific comments regarding grammar, citations, or minor clarifications.
  • Major Revisions: Significant changes to the argument, structure, or methodology are required. The manuscript may undergo a second round of review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or scope.

Author Response: Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter detailing how they have addressed each reviewer's comment.

  1. Appeals Process

Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe it was based on a significant error or misunderstanding.

  • Procedure: Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 10 days of the decision.
  • Resolution: The appeal will be reviewed by an independent committee or the editorial board. Their decision is final.