How to Peer Review an Academic Article

Carl Schleicher, Der Bücherwurm (The Bookworm), late 19th century, oil on wood, 21 × 15.5 cm

Peer review is at the heart of the academic publishing process. It ensures that the research we publish is rigorous, original, and contributes meaningfully to historical debate. Constructive and thoughtful reviews not only uphold journals academic standards but also provide invaluable guidance to authors as they refine their work.

If you are reviewing for us—or are considering joining our community of reviewers—this guide outlines what we look for in a report, how to frame constructive feedback, and how to make recommendations on a manuscript.

1. Core Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following areas:

Articulation of Argument

• Clarity and originality: Is the central argument clear, distinctive, and offering a fresh perspective?

• Significance: Does it meaningfully contribute to historical understanding and wider debates?

• Intervention: How well does the piece position itself within the existing field?

Engagement with Historiography

• Comprehensiveness: Does the author demonstrate a sound grasp of relevant scholarship?

• Critical analysis: Does the manuscript go beyond summary to offer critique or new directions?

• Currency: Does it incorporate recent and influential works?

• Omissions: Are there key works missing that should be acknowledged?

Structure and Style

• Organization: Is the argument logically structured, with sections building effectively?

• Clarity of prose: Is the writing clear, precise, and accessible to an academic audience?

• Flow: Do paragraphs and sections connect smoothly?

• Introduction and conclusion: Do these sections clearly set out the scope, methods, and findings?

Evidence and Sources

• Source base: Does the article use original primary sources appropriately?

• Use of evidence: Is evidence effectively linked to interpretation?

• Critical engagement: Does the author acknowledge context, bias, or limitations in sources?

• Unsupported claims: Are there assertions not adequately backed by evidence?

Special Issues

If the article is part of a Special Issue, please also consider whether it fits coherently with the theme and how it might strengthen its engagement with the issue’s remit.

2. Providing Constructive Feedback

Our aim is to give authors reviews that are rigorous but also genuinely helpful.

• Tone: Please maintain a respectful, collegial, and constructive voice. Focus your comments on the manuscript, not the author.

• Specificity: Avoid vague remarks. Instead of “the argument is unclear,” point to the page or section where clarification is needed.

• Deficiencies: If there are factual errors or unsupported claims, identify them clearly and suggest ways to address them.

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

You may add confidential notes for the editor, which will not be shared with the author. These might include concerns about plagiarism, doubts about the manuscript’s suitability for the journal, or other issues best handled privately.

4. Recommendation

Please conclude your review with one of the following clear recommendations:

• Accept: Ready for publication with only minor copy-editing.

• Minor revisions: Fundamentally strong, but requires small clarifications or corrections.

• Major revisions: Promising, but substantial work is needed in key areas (argument, structure, literature, or evidence).

• Reject: Serious flaws make the article unsuitable for publication in its current form, or it is not a good fit for the journal.

  
  

Quick Checklist for Reviewers:

• Is the argument clear, original, and significant?

• Does the article engage thoroughly and critically with historiography?

• Is the structure logical, well-written, and accessible?

• Are primary sources used effectively and critically?

• For Special Issues: does the article fit coherently within the theme?

• Is feedback specific, constructive, and respectful?

• Have any confidential concerns been noted for the editor?

• Have you provided a clear recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject)?

Final Thoughts

Whether you are a long-standing reviewer or considering reviewing with us for the first time, your contribution is essential. By offering constructive, precise, and thoughtful feedback, you not only help maintain the journal’s standards but also play a vital role in supporting authors at all stages of their careers. Together, we can continue to ensure the European Review of History publishes rigorous and innovative scholarship.