Peer Review Process

Peer review process is one of the most important and fundamental component in the publication process. The credibility and reputation of a journal mainly depends on the integrity of peer review process and trust of authors. PHS likes to assure the research community that it applies very stringent and rigorous peer review process in order to deliver high quality of content to its widespread readers around the globe.

Journals not following the peer review and other guidelines of HEC.

Being an HEC recognized/accredited journal, Historicus follows peer review guidelines of HEC in true letter and spirit to meet the requirements of annual funding. All papers submitted to Historicus undergo a rigorous internal and external review by experts in the relevant area of interest:

Internal Review

Each paper goes through an internal review by a relevant editorial board member to determine whether it is properly formatted and follows the publication ethics. The board member would also consider whether basic protocols of research have been followed in research design/analysis and contribution to the literature. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements are not sent out for external review, and the authors are generally informed within 1 to 2 weeks.

External Review

Historicus follows a double-blind review process after a paper screened through the internal review. Authors are requested not to include their personal information in the text of the paper. They are further indicated not to post their papers on any website to prevent their identity to the potential reviewers. While reviewers are also expected to refuse, if they come to know about the identification of author(s) of a paper referred to them for peer review.

External reviewers (1-2) generally comment and suggest on originality, quality of presentation, research design, data/results/conclusions, the usefulness of the study, and interest to the researcher's community. During an external review, if reviewers find that the research paper has major flaws that cannot be resolved through a major revision, they can recommend declining the paper.

Suggesting Reviewers

Following the HEC guidelines in letter and spirit, authors submitting their research papers to Historicus are not given an option to suggest potential reviewers to review their research papers. While, authors may indicate those scholars (due to any real or perceived conflict of interest) to whom they feel not suitable to serve as reviewers for their specific paper.

Criteria for Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected carefully based on the following criteria:

1) Must hold a PhD degree or advance professional qualification with extensive professional/academic experience, i.e. CPA, CFA, CMA, etc.
2) Recognized expert in the field (having publications in reputable academic or professional research journals)
3) Never coauthored paper with author(s)
4) Not affiliated with the institution of author(s)
5) Should have good understanding of data analysis

Resources Available to Reviewers

Reviewers of Historicus are reputable academic and professional researchers who have access to a wide range of research related databases and other latest material. If reviewers need further material to complete their review, it is also provided to them.

Publication Ethics (for reviewers)

All reviewers are encouraged to follow the HEC guidelines for reviewers to meet their responsibilities in relation to objectivity, promptness, conflict of interest, confidentiality and reporting.

Steps in Peer Review Process

Peer review process of Historicus can be broadly described as:

S.No	Steps of Review Process	Estimated Time
1	Submission of paper	-
2	First internal review *	3-4 weeks
3	External review (1-2 reviewers)	4-5 weeks
4	Communication of review reports to authors for minor/major revision **	1 week
5	Submission of  revised paper	4-8 weeks
6	Second internal review (to assess whether reviewers suggestions have been incorporated satisfactorily) ***	2-4 weeks
7	Acceptance of pape (on successful submission of revised paper)	1 week

* Paper is returned to authors, if it does not meet the basic criteria
** Paper is returned to authors, if external reviewers find that the research paper has so serious faults that cannot be resolved through major revision
*** Authors are requested for further revision, if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily
Note: Authors are requested to revise the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid unnecessary delay in the review process.

Resubmission of paper (after peer review)

Nearly every published paper goes through at least one revision. Authors should take a revision request as good news and an opportunity to learn and improve the quality of their research paper. They are directed to revise the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid needless interruption in the review process. Revised paper along with reply/response to review report should be submitted within two months. Author(s) should be very careful regarding accuracy and completeness in accordance with the reviewers’ suggested points, so as to avoid further review and delay (further revision can be recommended if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily).

English Language Editing

It is the basic responsibility of authors to ensure that their research papers should be free from spelling, typing, grammar, and syntax errors. Authors whose native language is not English must get their research paper edited by an English language exp