Scope
Peer Review Policy
This Policy defines the procedures, standards, and ethical principles governing the scientific evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the Revue d'Histoire Théorique (RHT).
Review model
Double-blind peer review
RHT applies a double-blind review system: neither the author knows the identity of the reviewers, nor do the reviewers know the identity of the author at the time of evaluation.
Double-blind review is the minimum standard recommended by DOAJ for journals seeking indexing. This model reduces institutional, gender, and reputational biases, and reinforces the independence of a journal in its establishment phase. It is particularly suited to an emerging discipline such as historionomy, whose scientific legitimacy is still being built.
| Actor | Knowledge of the other's identity |
|---|---|
| Author | Does not know the reviewers |
| Reviewers (×2 minimum) | Do not know the author |
| Editor-in-Chief | Knows all parties |
Hybrid publication model
RHT adopts a hybrid editorial model distinguishing two publication spaces with distinct statuses: peer-reviewed scientific articles, subject to evaluation according to the procedures defined in this Policy, and exploratory bulletins, contributions not subject to formal evaluation, clearly identified as such on the publication platform. This distinction is structural and visible.
Editorial process
Full workflow — Five steps
RHT's editorial process comprises five sequential and mandatory steps. No step may be skipped. The deadlines indicated are binding on the editorial board.
Submission
- —The author submits their manuscript via the RHT's official channel.
- —The manuscript is submitted anonymised (no name, affiliation, or identifiable self-reference).
- —The submission includes: the anonymised manuscript, a separate file with author information, the abstract (200 words max), keywords (5 to 8), and the conflict of interest declaration.
- —Deadline for acknowledgement of receipt: 3 working days.
Editorial screening (desk review)
- —Carried out by the editor-in-chief or a designated associate editor.
- —Criteria checked: compliance with Author Guidelines, disciplinary relevance, minimum quality required, absence of plagiarism (software check).
- —Possible decision: accepted for evaluation / rejected (motivated desk rejection).
- —Maximum deadline: 10 working days.
- —In case of desk rejection: notification to the author with written justification.
External evaluation (peer review)
- —Minimum two independent external reviewers.
- —Selected by the editor from the scientific committee or the pool of external experts.
- —Reviewer selection criteria: demonstrated disciplinary expertise, absence of conflict of interest, availability within deadlines.
- —Time allowed to reviewers: 30 calendar days.
- —Extension possible upon reasoned request: maximum 15 additional days.
- —In case of disagreement between the two reviewers: recourse to a third arbitrating reviewer.
Editorial decision
On the basis of the evaluation reports, the editor-in-chief renders one of the following four decisions. Notification deadline: 5 working days after receipt of complete reports.
| Decision | Definition | Next steps |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript accepted without modification or with minor formal corrections | Publication scheduled |
| Minor revision | Minor revisions required, not requiring re-evaluation | Editor verification |
| Major revision | Substantial revisions required, subject to re-evaluation | Return to reviewers |
| Reject | Manuscript not retained for publication | Motivated notification to author |
Revision and publication
- —In case of Minor or Major revision: the author has 30 calendar days to submit a revised version with a point-by-point response letter.
- —The response letter must explicitly address each comment from the reviewers.
- —The revised version is transmitted to the editor (Minor) or the original reviewers (Major) for final decision.
- —Final decision deadline: 15 calendar days.
- —After definitive acceptance: final formatting, assignment of identifiers (volume, issue, pages), online publication.
Timeline summary
Timeline summary
| Step | Maximum deadline | Responsible party |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement of receipt | 3 working days | Editorial secretariat |
| Editorial screening | 10 working days | Editor-in-Chief |
| External evaluation | 30 calendar days | Reviewers |
| Decision notification | 5 working days | Editor-in-Chief |
| Author revision | 30 calendar days | Author |
| Final post-revision decision | 15 calendar days | Editor / Reviewers |
| Estimated total time | 3 to 4 months | Full process |
Evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the basis of the following criteria, structured according to a standardised Reviewer Report Form:
Scientific criteria
- —Originality and contribution to historionomic or historical knowledge
- —Methodological rigour and soundness of reasoning
- —Adequate engagement with the existing literature
- —Validity and internal consistency of the argument
- —Quality and relevance of sources mobilised
Formal criteria
- —Compliance with the IMRAD structure or applicable structural framework
- —Quality of writing and language
- —Compliance with RHT's Author Guidelines
- —Clarity of the abstract and keywords
- —Coherence and completeness of bibliographic references
Discipline-specific criteria
Given the emerging nature of historionomy, reviewers are invited to consider:
- —The relevance of the contribution to the development of the discipline
- —Rigour in the treatment of cyclical and chronological data
- —Explicit positioning in relation to the foundational works of historionomy
- —A clear distinction between empirical results and theoretical interpretations
Ethical principles
Ethical principles
Confidentiality
The entire evaluation process is strictly confidential. Reviewers commit to not disclosing the content of manuscripts submitted to them, nor the very existence of the submission. This commitment is formalised in the confidentiality agreement signed upon accepting a review assignment.
Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest arises in the following cases: co-authorship with the manuscript's author in the last five years; supervision relationship (supervisor / doctoral student) current or past; membership of the same institution as the author; direct financial or professional interest in the results presented; any other relationship likely to affect the objectivity of judgement.
Integrity of evaluation
Reviewers commit to basing their evaluation exclusively on scientific criteria. Any bias based on national, institutional, gender, or ideological grounds is prohibited. Reviewers may not use for personal purposes the ideas or data contained in an unpublished manuscript.
Editorial board obligations
The editorial board guarantees the anonymity of the author to the reviewers and vice versa. Editorial decisions are justified and communicated within the defined deadlines. The editorial board may not disclose to third parties any information relating to submissions under review.
Appeal procedure
Appeal procedure
An author whose manuscript has been the subject of a rejection decision may lodge an appeal under the following conditions.
Admissible grounds
- —Manifest factual error in the evaluation report
- —Identifiable violation of the evaluation procedure as defined in this Policy
- —Undisclosed bias or conflict of interest on the part of a reviewer
The following do not constitute admissible grounds for appeal: mere scientific disagreement with the reviewers' conclusions, or dissatisfaction with the editorial decision.
Procedure
- 1.The appeal must be submitted in writing to the editorial address within 30 calendar days following notification of the decision.
- 2.The appeal must precisely identify the grounds invoked and the supporting evidence.
- 3.The editor-in-chief assesses the admissibility of the appeal and rules within 20 calendar days.
- 4.If the appeal is deemed admissible, the manuscript is submitted to a new reviewer independent of the previous ones.
- 5.The decision rendered at the conclusion of this appeal procedure is final.
Transparency
Transparency and publication data
In the interests of transparency and compliance with international standards, RHT publishes the following statistics annually:
- —Number of submissions received
- —Acceptance rate (accepted articles / submitted articles)
- —Average processing time
- —Number of reviewers involved
These data are published in the 'Editorial Information' section. They contain no information that could identify authors or reviewers.
Compliance
Compliance and indexing
| Organisation | Requirement covered |
|---|---|
| DOAJ | Formalised peer review, declared review type, published criteria |
| ERIH+ | Editorial and scientific committee, documented evaluation process |
| HAL / OpenAIRE | Compatible open access policy, structured metadata |
| COPE | Ethical principles, conflict of interest management, appeal procedure |
| Google Scholar | Structured online publication, complete metadata |
Revue d'Histoire Théorique — Peer-Review Policy v1.0 · DOAJ · ERIH+ · COPE · HAL