Editorial Policies

EiH uses a double-anonymous peer review process consisting of two stages. The first stage consists of a general review by the Executive Editor to determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal’s Mission Statement and commitment to scholarly innovation. This review will involve a summary consideration of the manuscript’s writing quality to ensure the presence of a historical argument, scholarly intervention, and interpretive methodology. It will also ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal’s style guide and proper citation protocols via the Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition. The second stage of review involves a double-blind refereed peer-review subject to oversight by an assigned member of the Editorial Board based on historical subject-matter expertise. At no time during the second stage review will the assigned member of the Editorial Board be made aware of the manuscript author’s identity.

Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to two or more subject expert referees, ideally but not always other emerging scholars from institutions outside of UVA. Referees may include members of the Editorial Board if an external referee cannot be located. Anonymous referees assess the submission’s suitability for publication according to professional academic standards, the journal’s Mission Statement, and the manuscript’s scholarly contributions. Namely, does the manuscript make an original argument and does it execute that argument effectively in a way that influences the trajectory of the scholarly conversation?

EiH particularly welcomes manuscripts that seek to answer evocative historical questions with innovative approaches and novel interpretations. 

Peer Review Referee Guidelines

Anonymous reviewers are provided with the following guidelines:

This evaluation form helps our Editorial Team determine whether we should publish the manuscript and what revisions need to take place before publication. Please be honest and thorough. Moreover, even if you recommend that EiH not proceed with publication, please provide constructive feedback about how the author might improve the article. Most submissions will not be published by EiH; nevertheless, we hope that all of the emerging historians who submit to EiH feel that they have benefitted from the experience.

Written Evaluation (250-750 words)

Do you think the manuscript should be published? That is, does it make an original argument that constitutes a contribution to its field, and does it execute that argument effectively? In addition, please describe the general strengths and weaknesses of the paper. What revisions would you recommend prior to publication?

Numerical Rating (1-5)

Please rate this manuscript from 1-5 assessing whether it should be published. A score of 1 constitutes a definitive “no” and a score of 5 constitutes an enthusiastic “yes.”