How manuscripts submitted to JEPECH are screened, reviewed double-blind and decided.
All research articles published in the Journal of European Politics and Eurasian Civilization History (JEPECH) undergo double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, its originality, methodological soundness, clarity and relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, gender, institutional affiliation or seniority.
On receipt, the editorial office acknowledges the submission by email and the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor checks that the manuscript:
Manuscripts that do not pass screening are returned to the authors without external review, normally within two weeks, with a short explanation.
Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to independent reviewers with expertise in the subject, normally at least two. Reviewers are asked to assess originality, contribution to the literature, argument and evidence, methodology, use of sources, structure and clarity, and compliance with research ethics.
The whole review process, from submission to first decision, normally takes 8 to 12 weeks. Authors are informed by email if the process is delayed.
On the basis of the reviewers' reports, the editor takes one of the following decisions:
The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers' comments are forwarded to the authors in anonymized form. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a response letter explaining how each comment was addressed.
Editors and reviewers must decline to handle a manuscript where they have a conflict of interest, including recent collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, personal relationships or competing interests with the authors. Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board are handled by another editor and reviewed under the same double-blind procedure; the author has no access to the review process.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share them, use their content for their own work, or upload any part of them to generative AI tools or other external services. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content of their reports.
Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error or a procedural irregularity may appeal once, in writing, to kakriba@aol.fr within 30 days of the decision, stating the grounds. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision; the outcome of the appeal is final.