Peer Review Policy

The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.  Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions. Each manuscript is reviewed by one or more Members of the Editorial Committee and, where additional expert input is required, by an additional expert Reviewer. Reviewers identity to authors remains anonymous. As the reviews are invited, the author identity is hidden to Reviewers. Publication of a submitted manuscript is contingent on approval by the Reviewer (whether an Editorial Committee Member, Guest Member, or external Reviewer).

In almost all cases, two peer reviewers evaluate each submission within one to two weeks and submit written reports to the IAHS editors.

During peer review, all manuscripts are considered privileged communications. Without prior approval from the IAHS editorial office, peer reviewers are expressly prohibited from:

• Copying manuscripts
• Sharing with others
• Discussing their personal evaluations or recommendations
• IAHS also instructs peer reviewers to:
• Report immediately any possible personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with authors or related to a paper’s topic; where conflicts arise, IAHS editors find substitute reviewers.
• Destroy manuscript copies once reviews are complete.

Reviewers are asked to consider the following for every article published in an IAHS

• Whether the article will be of value to a broad audience. The goal is to make all articles useful to specialists, scholars from other areas, and teachers and students. Reviewers are asked to make specific suggestions as to how the article can achieve this goal if revision is necessary.
• Whether the citations broad and representative of the published primary literature.
• Whether the abstract represents the whole article and is informative.
• Whether the article well organized and easy to read.
• Whether the illustrations and tables are effective.
• Reviewers make a decision to:
• Accept the article and publish with minor to moderate revisions;
• Request significant revision followed by another review; or
• Reject the article; Reviewers can recommend whether the author may resubmit or not.
• If an external Reviewer is consulted or an article is recommended for rejection, the Editor(s) makes the final decision about publication. If an article is rejected, the Editor(s) communicates the reasons for rejection to the author, and indicates if a substantial revision and resubmission is welcome.