Peer-Review

Kaunas History Annals uses double-blind peer review: authors do not know the reviewers and reviewers do not know the authors. All research articles, source editions and “Seminar” articles are peer reviewed. Book reviews, annotations and Chronicle texts are not peer reviewed; their suitability is assessed by the Editorial Board.

1. Initial screening. The Chair of the Editorial Board or a Board member appointed by her checks that the text fits the scope of Kaunas History Annals and the author guidelines and that it is original (checked with iThenticate). A text outside the scope or not meeting the guidelines is returned to the author without review.
2. Selection of reviewers. At least two reviewers who are specialists in the subject are appointed. At least one reviewer must be from outside the author's institution; Editorial Board members act as reviewers only in exceptional cases. A reviewer may not be the author's co-author, supervisor or close colleague of the last five years. The author may name persons they would prefer not to review the text; the final decision rests with the Editorial Board.
3. Review. Reviewers complete the review form of Kaunas History Annals, assessing the relevance and novelty of the topic, the source base and source criticism, command of the historiography, suitability of the method, consistency of the argument, soundness of the conclusions, structure and language, and accuracy of the summaries. The recommendation is one of four: accept; accept after minor revision; re-review after major revision; reject.
4. Decision. When both reviews are positive, the article is accepted. When the reviews contradict each other, a third reviewer is appointed. The final decision is taken by the Editorial Board on the basis of the reviews. The author receives the content of the reviews without the reviewers' identities.
5. Revision. The author revises the text within the deadline set by the editorial office and submits a short response explaining how the comments were addressed. After major revision the text is sent for a second round of review.
6. Appeal. An author who disagrees with the decision may appeal in writing to the Editorial Board within 30 days, stating the grounds. The Board considers an appeal only where new arguments or procedural irregularities are presented. The Board's decision is final.

The duration of the review depends on the availability of reviewers and may therefore vary. If the review is delayed, the editorial office informs the author. Reviewers' identities are not disclosed, even after publication; reviews are not passed to third parties.