Peer-Review

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the Eurasian Journal of History undergo preliminary editorial screening and mandatory scientific peer review. The peer review process is aimed at ensuring the quality of published materials, the reliability of the presented results, adherence to the principles of academic integrity, maintenance of the journal’s high scholarly standards, and selection of relevant and significant research works.

Each manuscript accepted for peer review is sent to at least two independent reviewers with scholarly expertise in the relevant field of research. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor from among specialists whose expertise corresponds to the subject area of the submitted article. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, the research topic, or the results of the manuscript.

All reviewers are required to comply with the principles of publication ethics, confidentiality, objectivity, and independence of expert evaluation. The review process is confidential. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s approved criteria and provide the editorial office with a reasoned review report.

The review report addresses the relevance of the topic, scientific novelty, reliability of the results, theoretical and practical significance of the research, quality of the methodology, logic of presentation, accuracy of source use, and, where applicable, major comments and recommendations for improving the article.

Based on the results of the manuscript review, the reviewer submits one of the following recommendations to the editorial office:

1. Accept for publication — the manuscript complies with the journal’s scope and the requirements for scientific relevance, originality, structure, and formatting, and contains no significant scientific, methodological, or ethical violations. In this case, the manuscript may be included in the list of articles planned for publication in the journal.
2. Return for revision — the manuscript requires minor or major corrections. In this case, the editorial office returns the manuscript to the authors with the reviewer’s comments and recommendations. After the revised version is submitted, the manuscript is reconsidered by the editorial office and, if necessary, sent for repeated peer review. If, after revision, the reviewer continues to identify significant deficiencies, the Editorial Board has the right to reject the manuscript without the possibility of further revision.
3. Reject the manuscript — the manuscript does not comply with the journal’s scientific, methodological, or ethical requirements, or does not correspond to its thematic scope. In this case, the editorial office sends the author a reasoned rejection. In exceptional cases, the manuscript may be sent for additional expert evaluation. Repeated peer review of the same manuscript is allowed no more than once.

The editorial office reserves the right to refuse publication if the author ignores the reviewers’ comments, fails to submit the revised version within the established timeframe, or makes only formal changes without addressing the identified deficiencies.

The reviewer may draw the editorial office’s attention to possible signs of improper textual borrowing, duplicate publication, data falsification, or other violations of publication ethics. If necessary, the reviewer may additionally check individual parts of the manuscript using available search engines and tools for detecting textual similarities.

The review period is usually 4-6 weeks from the moment the reviewer confirms acceptance of the review invitation. If necessary, the review period may be extended in agreement with the editorial office. If the reviewer is unable to prepare the report within the established timeframe, they must promptly notify the editorial office.

If the reviewer recommends revision, the editorial office sends the reviewer’s comments and recommendations to the author. The author submits the revised version of the manuscript through OJS. Depending on the nature of the changes made, the revised article may be reconsidered by the editorial office or sent for repeated peer review.

If two negative reviews are received, the author is sent a reasoned rejection. If one of the reviews is positive, the issue of further consideration of the manuscript is submitted to the Editorial Board.

All stages of peer review, including manuscript receipt, preliminary screening, reviewer assignment, submission of review reports, manuscript revision, correspondence with authors, and the editorial decision, are recorded in the OJS electronic editorial system.