Home - For Reviewers
PEER REVIEW POLICY
JHSSS - Journal of the History of Science and Science of Science uses a double-blind review, in which the identity of both the reviewer and the author are unknown to each other.
Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer-review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Potential reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information.
CONDUCTING A REVIEW
Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal. Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors.
Respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s an advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review, without first obtaining permission from the journal.
Bias and Competing Interests
It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice.
Suspicion of Ethics Violations
If you come across any irregularities concerning research and publication ethics do let the journal know. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.