Peer-Review

Submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation for compliance with the journal's subject matter, editorial policy, and formatting rules. At this stage, the entire article file (including all data, abstract, keywords, references, and author information) is also checked for plagiarism using plagiarism detection software such as Antiplagiat.com. If problems related to subject matter, formatting, or originality are identified, the manuscript will be returned to the authors without review, and the authors will be notified as appropriate. Manuscripts that are relevant to the journal's subject matter and publication requirements are accepted for consideration and sent for review.

The editorial board reviews manuscripts of scientific articles to ensure the quality of published articles, the accuracy and reliability of the presentation of results, to maintain the high scientific and theoretical level of the publication, and to select the most relevant and practically significant scientific works.

All articles submitted to the editorial office of the Eurasian Journal of History undergo initial review and peer review.

The editorial board of the journal has adopted international standards of double-blind peer review: to ensure the objectivity of the recommendations received, the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors or other reviewers. Reviewers are appointed from among specialists in the relevant field of research and leading experts in the field covered by the article by the editor-in-chief. All reviewers must adhere to the requirements of scientific publication ethics and be objective and impartial.

Reviews are conducted confidentially. If an article is rejected by reviewers, authors are sent a rejection letter stating the reasons. The review indicates the relevance of the article, the reliability of the research results presented, the degree of their novelty, and their scientific and practical significance. The main shortcomings and flaws of the material (if any) are also indicated.

The reviewer decides on whether the article can be published: accept (including with minor revisions); conditionally accept (with revisions and re-review); reject. If the review is positive, the article is submitted to the editorial board for a decision on publication. If the reviewer's comments require revisions to the article, it is sent back to the author for correction. After receiving the reviewer's conclusion, the question of publication is considered at a meeting of the editorial board.

If the review is negative, the work is sent for additional review. If there are two negative reviews, the author is given a reasoned rejection, certified by the Editor-in-Chief. If the second review is positive, the matter of publication is brought before the editorial board.