logo

Policy for Reviewers

Policy for Reviewers

As a peer-reviewed academic journal, The Historian relies on the scholarly judgement, integrity, and discretion of expert reviewers to maintain the quality and credibility of its published content. Reviewers play a central role in our triple-blind peer review process, ensuring impartiality and academic rigour.

This policy outlines the responsibilities, ethical standards, and procedural expectations for all reviewers engaged by The Historian.

  1. Eligibility and Selection
  • Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, academic experience, and publication record.
  • The Historian maintains a structured review framework:
    Each submitted manuscript will be evaluated by three referees — two national (within Pakistan) and one international — to ensure scholarly diversity, cross-regional engagement, and global academic relevance.
  • The editorial team may consult institutional profiles, ORCID iDs, and bibliographic databases to assess reviewer suitability.
  • Early-career scholars may also be invited to review under editorial mentorship.

  1. Triple-Blind Peer Review Process

The Historian follows a triple-blind review model, where:

  • The identities of authors are hidden from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are hidden from authors.
  • The handling editor does not access reviewer identities during the evaluation phase.

This system promotes objectivity, neutrality, and fairness.

  1. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

       a. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content for personal or professional purposes.

       b. Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to accept or decline invitations within 5 days.
  • Once accepted, the review must be submitted within 3 weeks, unless an extension is requested in advance.

       c. Constructive Feedback

  • Reviews should be balanced, respectful, and focused on improving the manuscript.
  • Comments should address:
    • Originality and relevance
    • Research quality and methodology
    • Argumentation and theoretical engagement
    • Use of sources
    • Structural clarity and writing quality

       d. Ethical Vigilance

  • Reviewers must alert editors to:
    • Plagiarism or high similarity in content
    • Data fabrication or unethical research
    • Conflict of interest or bias
    • Duplicate or redundant publication

      D. Impartiality and Bias

  • Reviewers must avoid personal, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest.
  • If a potential conflict arises (e.g., prior collaboration with the author), reviewers must immediately disclose this and decline the assignment.
  • Reviews should be based purely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, without regard to the author's identity, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation.

      E. Format of Review Report

  • Reviewers must submit:
    • A confidential recommendation to the editor (Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject)
    • Comments to the author (anonymous, constructive, and focused)
  • Inappropriate comments (e.g., derogatory, vague, or dismissive remarks) will be removed by the editorial team.4. Recognition and Credit

       The Historian deeply values reviewer contributions and may:

  • Issue annual reviewer acknowledgements
  • Provide certificates of review
  • Recommend participation in Publons, ORCID, or similar recognition platforms

      5. Communication and Appeals

  • All communications between reviewers and the editorial office must remain confidential and professional.
  • Reviewers who have concerns about editorial decisions, misuse of reviews, or ethical irregularities should contact the Editor-in-Chief confidentially.

      6. Reviewer Misconduct

       Reviewer misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Breach of confidentiality
  • Plagiarism or misuse of content
  • Biased or harmful reviews
  • Falsifying reviewer identity

       Confirmed misconduct may result in:

  • Removal from the reviewer database
  • Notification to academic institutions
  • Permanent disqualification from reviewing for the journal

      7. Reviewer Agreement

By accepting a review assignment for The Historian, reviewers agree to abide by this policy and uphold the ethical principles set out by COPE (2022) and the journal’s editorial standards.