The Academic Journal of History and Research (ATAD) submits every manuscript it receives to the attentive reading of qualified specialists in the field. It regards this reading as the safeguard of its publication quality. This guide explains to colleagues undertaking the review task how the process works and what is expected of them.

1. The Reviewer’s Role and  Contribution

A reviewer is asked not merely to approve or reject a text, but to analyse it from multiple angles and turn that analysis into a reasoned report. In assessing a work of history, four dimensions stand out in particular:

• Method — Whether the study is built upon the methodological framework that historical research requires.
• Sources — How aptly primary sources and archival material have been selected, and how they are read and interpreted.
• Originality — The connection the text establishes with current scholarship in the field and the new knowledge or perspective it brings to it.
• Integrity — The study’s adherence to ethical standards and the principles of academic honesty.

2. Before Beginning the Assessment

Accepting a review assignment also means taking on the responsibilities set out in this guide. To ensure the process runs smoothly, we kindly ask that a few points be observed from the outset:

• You are expected to submit your report through the system in two separate sections: one containing your remarks visible to the author, the other holding an assessment that only the editor will see. Any reservations you prefer not to share with the author may be set down freely in the editor-only field.
• If any conflict of interest exists between you and the study to be reviewed (co-authorship, institutional ties, personal acquaintance, and the like), please inform the editor before taking on the task.
• If you anticipate that you will not be able to complete the review within the given period, you may request additional time from the editor. This allows the author to be kept accurately informed about the process.

3. Confidentiality and  Ethics

The review process is a closed one, built on trust. Within this framework, reviewers are expected to observe the following principles:

• The manuscript under review and the report prepared are confidential; they may not be shared with third parties, and no outside person may be involved in the assessment.
• Once the review is complete, it is appropriate for copies of the work to be removed from the reviewer’s personal devices.
• Criticism should be grounded in evidence and expressed in a constructive manner aimed at improving the text.
• Reports should focus on evaluating the author’s scholarly effort; remarks directed at the person, or wounding in tone, must be avoided.

4. Criteria to Be Taken as the Basis of Review

ATAD attaches importance to each published study making an original contribution to its field and fully meeting academic standards. Reviewers are expected to keep the following headings in view during their assessment.

Contribution and originality. Has the study’s research question been stated clearly? Does the subject belong to a previously unexplored area, or does it bring a fresh interpretation to a familiar matter? Is the question promised in the introduction given a satisfactory answer by the end of the text? These points determine the significance of the study’s contribution to the literature.

Method and construction. It should be examined whether the chosen research method is suited to the aim of the study and is consistent and reliable. Is the logical structure of the text sound, and do the arguments support one another coherently?

Literature and conceptual framework. It should be assessed whether the author has been able to situate the work within existing scholarship and whether the theoretical concepts employed are clearly defined. The currency and accuracy of the sources consulted are also considered here.

Language, expression and citation. The text’s conformity to academic writing standards, its fluency, and its precision in the use of terminology should be reviewed. It should also be checked that all quotations are correctly cited and that sources are shown adequately and in proper form.

Decision on publishability. The reviewer should assess the work impartially and should not shrink from recommending rejection when necessary. Taking a clear and reasoned stance on studies that do not meet the criteria is one of the essential ways of preserving the journal’s scholarly level.