All submissions undergo an evaluation process, in which the following steps are strictly followed: first, the preparatory phase carried out by the editorial staff, during which the schedule and, where applicable, the theme of the upcoming issue are determined. Secondly, submissions are considered by the Editor-in-Chief in the first instance who assesses the potential interest of new historical discoveries, ideas and methods and significance. Authors are strongly advised to read the notes for contributors before submitting a manuscript. Submitted manuscripts that do not adhere to our standards may be returned to the author(s).
Thirdly, the received articles are processed and the actual evaluation takes place conducted using the double-blind peer review method. Suitable papers are peer-reviewed by a minimum of two experts. Peer-reviewers (also known as Referees) are selected for their knowledge and expertise and may include, but are not limited to the journal’s Editorial Board. The analysis of the materials is based on a pre-established evaluation form, applied uniformly to all articles and studies.
Submissions are reviewed using a double-blind system, in which the reviewer does not know the author’s identity, nor does the author know the reviewer’s identity. If the reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest or believes they lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript, they may decline the invitation to review. The reviewer’s identity remains confidential to the author(s), and any information or ideas obtained during the review process may not be used for personal gain.
The reviewer is required to analyze the article and use the standard evaluation form to record their observations and recommendations and/or to insert comments directly into the text. This form, applicable to all articles and studies, is provided by the editorial board and is also available on the journal’s website. The review process will not exceed 45 days from the date of receipt of the manuscript.
The editors consider both review reports. In the event of significant differences between them, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. Authors are informed via email whether the article is accepted for publication, requires revisions, or is rejected. Additionally, they receive an anonymized version of the review form, which includes the comments and recommendations provided.
Subsequently, authors are required to make the changes requested by the reviewers; otherwise, the editorial board may decide to reject the paper. Revised versions are resubmitted according to a schedule established and communicated by the editors to each author. The editorial board is responsible for the selection and quality of published manuscripts, while the authors assume full responsibility for the content of the articles.
The final decision regarding the publication of the article rests with the Editorial Board and is communicated to the author.
Preparing the journal for printing, determining the order of the articles, and compiling the table of contents are the responsibilities of the editorial board.
Proofs
Proofs are sent to the corresponding author by e-mail as a PDF file. These should be read carefully, paying particular attention to any tables, figures and references, and then corrected and returned to the Editor-in-Chief by e-mail within ten business days of receipt. Extensive changes at the proof stage are not permitted. In the event of important developments in a field that affect the manuscript arising after the final revision, a ‘Note added in proof’ may be permitted.