Peer Review Policy and Guidelines

The scholarly contribution of peer reviewers is fundamental to maintaining the academic integrity, intellectual quality, and credibility of the Indian History Journal (IHJ). Peer review requires subject expertise, disciplinary competence, critical judgment, and a strong commitment to ethical scholarly practice.

At the Indian History Journal, peer review, undertaken in conjunction with editorial evaluation, serves to:

  • Assist the Editorial Team in making informed publication decisions;
  • Assess the originality, significance, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts;
  • Evaluate the quality and appropriate use of historical evidence and sources;
  • Ensure academic rigor and methodological soundness;
  • Identify significant gaps, inaccuracies, or weaknesses in argumentation;
  • Provide constructive recommendations to authors for strengthening their work; and
  • Contribute to maintaining the overall scholarly standards of the Journal.

The Indian History Journal follows ethical principles and best practices associated with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

The Indian History Journal follows a double-blind peer review model.

Under this model:

  • The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another;
  • Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, research experience, and subject specialisation;
  • Wherever practicable, reviewers are selected from institutions independent of those of the authors;
  • Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and independently; and
  • Editorial decisions are made independently of the personal identity or institutional affiliation of the author.

Where necessary, the Journal may appoint additional reviewers to resolve substantive differences in assessment or to obtain specialised expertise.

Authors are expected to cooperate fully with the peer-review process, respond appropriately to reviewer comments, and submit revised manuscripts within the timeframe communicated by the Editorial Team.

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers associated with the Indian History Journal are expected to observe the following principles.

1. Objectivity and Constructiveness

Reviewers should:

  • Provide fair, balanced, and evidence-based assessments;
  • Evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly merits rather than the author's identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal views;
  • Assess the originality, clarity, significance, and academic contribution of the manuscript;
  • Provide constructive criticism that may assist the author in improving the work;
  • Clearly explain substantive criticisms and recommendations; and
  • Avoid hostile, defamatory, dismissive, discriminatory, or personal remarks.

Disagreement with an author's interpretation should be expressed through reasoned scholarly criticism rather than personal judgment.

2. Evaluation of Historical Evidence

Because IHJ publishes research in history and related fields, reviewers should pay particular attention to the treatment of historical evidence.

Where relevant, reviewers should assess:

  • The adequacy and relevance of primary and secondary sources;
  • The accuracy of citations and references;
  • The appropriate interpretation of archival and documentary evidence;
  • The distinction between evidence and historical interpretation;
  • The use of historiographical literature;
  • The treatment of conflicting or contradictory sources;
  • The methodological approach adopted by the author; and
  • Whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence presented.

Reviewers should not require authors to adopt a particular historical interpretation merely because it differs from their own scholarly position.

3. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and materials received during the review process as strictly confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript with another person without prior permission from the Editorial Team;
  • Discuss the manuscript or its contents with third parties;
  • Circulate unpublished material;
  • Use information from the manuscript for personal research or other purposes; or
  • Reveal their role in reviewing a particular manuscript where doing so could compromise the double-blind process.

The obligation of confidentiality continues after completion of the review.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with the author;
  • Institutional affiliation with the author;
  • Personal or professional relationships;
  • Direct academic competition;
  • Financial interests;
  • Significant disagreement arising from ongoing research; or
  • Any other circumstance that could compromise impartial assessment.

If a conflict exists or may reasonably appear to affect impartiality, the reviewer should decline the assignment and inform the Editorial Team.

If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has begun, the reviewer should immediately notify the Editorial Team and, where appropriate, withdraw from the review.

5. Competence and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept an assignment only when they possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript responsibly.

Reviewers should:

  • Accept assignments that fall within their academic expertise;
  • Inform the Editorial Team promptly if the manuscript lies outside their area of competence;
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe;
  • Inform the Editorial Team as soon as possible if additional time is required; and
  • Decline the assignment if they cannot provide a fair, independent, and timely assessment.

Timely peer review is essential to maintaining an efficient publication process for authors.

6. Ethical Responsibility

Reviewers are expected to contribute to the integrity of the scholarly record.

Where appropriate, reviewers should identify:

  • Significant omissions in relevant scholarship;
  • Important uncited sources;
  • Unsupported claims;
  • Apparent factual inaccuracies;
  • Misrepresentation of historical evidence;
  • Suspected plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication;
  • Fabricated or questionable evidence; and
  • Other serious concerns relating to academic integrity.

Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Team rather than directly accusing authors of misconduct.

7. Plagiarism and Similarity Checking

Reviewers should report any suspected plagiarism, substantial duplication, or unattributed appropriation of ideas, language, evidence, or arguments that they identify during the review process.

Reviewers are requested not to independently upload submitted manuscripts to external plagiarism-detection or AI-detection platforms.

This is important because manuscripts are confidential and uploading them to external services may compromise the confidentiality of the submission or interfere with the Journal's official screening procedures.

The Editorial Team is responsible for conducting formal similarity and plagiarism checks using the Journal's designated procedures.

8. Professional Information

Reviewers are expected to provide accurate and current professional information to the Indian History Journal, including, where applicable:

  • Current institutional affiliation;
  • Academic qualifications;
  • Academic position or status;
  • Areas of expertise;
  • Research interests;
  • Major areas of publication or scholarly work; and
  • Relevant professional or academic engagements.

Reviewers should update their professional information whenever significant changes occur.

9. Use of Unpublished Information

Information, arguments, interpretations, archival references, data, or other material contained in an unpublished manuscript must not be used by reviewers for their own research or advantage.

Reviewers must not:

  • Appropriate an author's ideas;
  • Reproduce unpublished arguments;
  • Cite unpublished findings as their own;
  • Share privileged information with colleagues; or
  • Use confidential material for competitive, institutional, or commercial advantage.

Unpublished information may be used only for the legitimate purpose of evaluating the manuscript.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should make recommendations based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript.

A review may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear academic reasoning.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editorial Team.

Reviewers should not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's own publications or publications unrelated to the manuscript. Suggested references should be recommended only where they are genuinely relevant to strengthening the scholarly discussion.

11. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Where a manuscript is returned for revision, reviewers may be invited to evaluate the revised version.

In such cases, reviewers should assess whether:

  • Major concerns raised in the previous review have been adequately addressed;
  • Necessary revisions have been incorporated;
  • The revised manuscript has improved in scholarly quality and clarity; and
  • Remaining concerns are substantial enough to affect publication.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and matters of personal stylistic preference.

Ethical Use of Information

All unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process must remain confidential.

Reviewers must not use such information for:

  • Personal research;
  • Academic competition;
  • Institutional advantage;
  • Commercial purposes; or
  • Any other purpose unrelated to the review process.

Where a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest, they must notify the Editorial Team and recuse themselves where appropriate.

Commitment to Academic Integrity

The Indian History Journal recognises peer reviewers as essential partners in maintaining the quality and credibility of scholarly historical research.

The Journal values reviewers who contribute their expertise, independence, diligence, fairness, and constructive criticism to the publication process.

Through responsible peer review, IHJ seeks to strengthen historical scholarship, encourage rigorous engagement with evidence and historiography, and maintain a credible and trustworthy scholarly record.

The Journal is grateful to all scholars who contribute their time and expertise to the peer-review process.