Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Reviewer guidelines

Peer-review process

Submissions to JHTR are first subject to an internal scan for relevance and coherence by the Editors-in-Chief. When it is decided that the article fits the scope of the journal, the Managing Editor assigns it to a responsible Associate Editor, who will send it out for double-blind peer review by a minimum of two external Reviewers.  

Based on the Reviewers' recommendations, the Associate Editor(s) will decide for acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions or rejection for publication. In case of minor or major revisions, Authors are expected to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed description of the changes made and a response to the reviewer's comments. This document should outline in detail how each of the comments was addressed in the revised manuscript or should provide a rebuttal to the criticism. Revised submissions may be re-sent to Reviewers. The Associate Editor and the Editors-in-Chief will decide about final approval of the revised manuscript. 

After acceptance the manuscript will be send to a Copy Editor to provide English-language text editing service. The Author will receive an e-mail with a link to the editorial system to proofread the copyedited version and to submit the final version. 

Finally, the copyedited version of the manuscript will be sent to the Layout Editor, who will prepare galleys ('proofs'). At this stage, the Author can only correct minor mistakes, if necessary. If the Author approves, the final version of the manuscript will be published online.

Peer review guidelines

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of papers in a fair and constructive way and to provide comment on the topics below:

1. Overall rating for manuscript on a scale of 1-5 (5 being best)
Please give arguments.

2. Recommended manuscript decision
a. Accept
b. Accept with minor revisions
c. Accept with major revisions
d. Revise and resubmit
e. Reject

3. Statements with following options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, 
strongly agree (on a scale of 1-5 (5 being strongly agree))
a. The paper makes a significant contribution to scholarship.
b. The paper is professionally written and well readable.
c. The topic of this paper is relevant and of interest to the audience of this journal.
d. The paper has strong supporting arguments and evidence.
e. If the paper contains empirical research: the empirical methodology was adequate and sound.
f. This article adequately engages with the relevant scholarly literature.

4. Open response questions:
a. Please state the thesis of the paper using your own words or the words of the author. Is the thesis of this paper clear, compelling, and relevant?
b. Please explain the contribution that the paper makes to scholarship.
c. Was the research process and presentation sound - why or why not?
d. Do the conclusions relate back to the approach followed to answer the main question or support the main thesis of the article, and if applicable: do the conclusions clearly reflect the sources and data presented?
e. If applicable: does the research conducted leave room for unexpected outcomes?
f. Are there any other notes to the editor you would like to add?