Editorial Policies

All submissions are initially assessed by a member of the Editorial Team who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to two or more subject experts, ideally but not always other emerging scholars. These anonymous referees assess the submission’s suitability for publication. Namely, does it make an original argument that constitutes a contribution to its field, and does it execute that argument effectively? If appropriate experts external to the journal cannot be found then members of the Editorial Team or Advisory Board may be asked to complete a review task. Authors may be invited to recommend or ask for the exclusion of specific individuals from the peer review process. The journal does not guarantee to use these suggestions. All reviewers must be independent from the submission and will be asked to declare all competing interests.

The journal uses a double-anonymous peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process. The review period is expected to take around six to eight weeks, although this can vary depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal.

Based on the reviewer reports the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor, who is supported by an expert Editorial Team and Advisory Board.

Members of the Editorial Team and Advisory Board are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review. A competing interest must also be declared within the submission and any resulting publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

Anonymous reviewers are provided with the following guidelines:

This evaluation form helps our Editorial Team determine whether we should publish the manuscript and what revisions need to take place before publication. Please be honest and thorough. Moreover, even if you recommend that EiH not proceed with publication, please provide constructive feedback about how the author might improve the article. Most submissions will not be published by EiH; nevertheless, we hope that all of the emerging historians who submit to EiH feel that they have benefitted from the experience.

Written Evaluation (250-750 words)

Do you think the manuscript should be published? That is, does it make an original argument that constitutes a contribution to its field, and does it execute that argument effectively? In addition, please describe the general strengths and weaknesses of the paper. What revisions would you recommend prior to publication?

Numerical Rating (1-5)

Please rate this manuscript from 1-5 assessing whether it should be published. A score of 1 constitutes a definitive “no” and a score of 5 constitutes an enthusiastic “yes.”