Review

Process

After accepting a review request, you will be asked to complete the Review Form. If you cannot access or fill out the form, please contact the journal’s editor, Leona Watson, or the Editorial Assistant Maartje Scheltens, for assistance.

To preserve the anonymity of the review process, please exclude your name from the review comments.

Peer reviewers should familiarise themselves with the referees’ responsibilities outlined here and should refer to the relevant section of our policy on the use of AI.

We appreciate that reviewers may not be able to deliver their reviews within one month, as we request. If you need to negotiate a later deadline, please let us know and we will try our best to accommodate your preferred date of submission. Receiving reviews from academics with precisely relevant expertise in the field is much more important to us than receiving a review within one month.

Those who complete a review for this joutnal will be eligible for a 25% discount off all books for sale on the White Horse Press website, for one year from submission of the completed review.


Review Guidelines

Reviewers are requested to consider the following points in their evaluation:

  1. Key argument
  2. Theoretical and/or empirical contribution
  3. Robustness of the evidence vis-à-vis the arguments presented
  4. Problematic gaps or sources of confusion or misunderstanding in the light of the current international scholarship in the field
  5. Suggestions for strengthening the paper
  6. Language and presentation
  7. Awareness of equality, diversity and inclusivity considerations.
  8. We also ask reviewers to adhere to our guidelines for peer review and within the limits of our policy on the use of AI.


Fairness

We ask peer reviewers to help the journal support equality, diversity and inclusion. Authors are expected to think carefully about language and inclusivity in preparing submissions, paying particular attention to prose and terminology in relation to gender, racial, socio-economic, cultural, ethnic, sexual orientation, ageist and ableist frames of reference. In cases where an author falls short of this standard, peer reviewers should comment in their review.

We hope that – where the subject matter is comprehensible and quality of scholarship may be adequately judged – reviewers will make allowance for scholars whose first language is not English. Environment and History is committed to working with authors to improve English at the editing stage, so peer reviewers should focus primarily on quality of content when advising acceptance, revision or rejection.

 

Thank you very much for supporting Environment and History.