Peer Review Process

Journal of Heritage and Historical Research (JHHR) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the originality, academic quality, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of all submitted manuscripts. The review process is designed to be fair, impartial, confidential, and aligned with internationally recognized publication ethics principles, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system or designated editorial communication channel. Upon receipt, the editorial office acknowledges the submission and registers it for preliminary editorial assessment.

2. Initial Editorial Evaluation (7–10 Days)

The editorial team conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic editorial, ethical, and academic requirements.

  • Alignment with the journal's aims and scope.
  • Compliance with the journal's formatting and submission requirements.
  • Plagiarism and similarity screening, with a maximum similarity index of 15%.
  • Assessment of AI-generated content, with acceptable AI-generated content limited to 5%.
  • Preliminary assessment of academic quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution.

Only manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary evaluation are forwarded for external peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. JHHR follows a double-blind review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and significance of the scholarly contribution.
  • Research methodology, use of evidence, and academic rigor.
  • Accuracy, reliability, and appropriate interpretation of findings or historical evidence.
  • Clarity, organization, coherence, and quality of presentation.
  • Relevance to history, heritage, archaeology, cultural studies, conservation, museum studies, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and recommendations that assist authors in strengthening the academic quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editorial team evaluates the recommendations and determines the appropriate editorial decision. Possible decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Relevant reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated to the authors to facilitate necessary revisions.

5. Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are normally provided 1–3 weeks to submit a revised manuscript, depending on the extent of revisions required.

Authors should:

  • Address all reviewer comments carefully and comprehensively.
  • Submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.
  • Provide a detailed response explaining how each significant reviewer comment has been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team, depending on the nature and extent of the requested revisions.

6. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering the reviewer recommendations, quality of the revised manuscript, academic merit, originality, relevance, and overall suitability for publication.

The final editorial evaluation is generally completed within 2–3 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the review or revision process.

7. Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which may include:

  • Copyediting and proofreading.
  • Formatting and layout preparation.
  • Final verification of author and publication information.
  • Copyright and licensing confirmation.
  • Final online publication.

The final version of an accepted article is normally prepared for online publication following completion of the editorial and production procedures.

Ethical Responsibility

Throughout the peer review and publication process, Journal of Heritage and Historical Research (JHHR) follows recognized standards of responsible scholarly publishing and considers the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All participants in the publication process are expected to uphold:

  • Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts and review materials must be treated confidentially.
  • Transparency: Editorial communication and decisions should be handled fairly and transparently.
  • Conflict of Interest: Any actual or potential conflict of interest should be disclosed promptly.
  • Integrity: Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to maintain honesty, objectivity, and professionalism throughout the publication process.