Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

For authors

Articles submitted to BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review  are initially assessed by the managing editor and two members of the Editorial Board on the following general criteria:

  • Word count max. 8,000 words
  • Authors guidelines sufficiently applied
  • Relevance of the topic/theme of the article for Low Countries history
  • Cursory check of the content

On the basis of this first assessment, it will be decided if the submission is ready to be put to two external reviewers. Articles accepted for external review will be reviewed by the editorial board, which meets four times a year, as well as by two anonymous, external peer reviewers. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review applies a double blind peer review: referees remain anonymous for the author and the manuscript is anonymized for the experts who review the article.

We aim to inform authors within two months about the decision whether or not a manuscript will be sent out for review, and when the Editorial Board expects to discuss the submitted article. After receiving the referee reports, the manuscript will be discussed by the Editorial Board on its next meeting.

After the Editorial Board meeting the author will receive a decision letter as soon as possible, with a report of the Board’s evaluation of the manuscript.

There are four possible outcomes of the review process:

A. Merits publication in the journal as it stands or with minor   revision.
B. Requires some revision before further consideration for publication.
C. Requires major revision and possibly further substantive research before any consideration for publication.
D. Is not suitable for publication in BMGN – LCHR.

In the case of a ‘B’ or a ‘C’, the author is invited to revise or rewrite the text on the basis of the evaluation report. The revision will preferably be re-submitted before the next Editorial Board meeting.

For referees

Referee reports can be submitted in English or Dutch and should ideally be returned to the editorial board within six weeks. Comments and recommendation will be treated in strict confidence. However, we assume that referees will not mind if we feel it useful to pass on all, or part, of your comments to the author after they have been edited to ensure anonymity.

When you assess the paper it is important to consider both the structure and content. We ask that you consider:

  • General structure and organization
  • Coherence and general flow of ideas
  • Sources and interpretation
  • Interdisciplinary/comparative perspective
  • Contribution and originality

The following points should be taken into consideration, recognizing that not all the points apply to every paper and that some papers may prompt additional questions:

  • Is the title suitably informative?
  • Are the objectives of the work clearly stated?
  • Are the methods clearly described?
  • Are the conclusions concisely presented?
  • Does the author refer to the relevant literature?
  • Does the paper provide anything new either in the way of evidence or interpretation to what is already known in the field?
  • Does the paper discuss an issue of current concern in the field?
  • Are the arguments sound?
Referees should conclude their assessment by offering an overall evaluation of the paper, recommending one of the following judgments and subsequent courses of action:

A. Merits publication in the journal as it stands or with minor revision.
B. Requires moderate revision before further consideration for publication.
C. Requires major revision and possibly further substantive research before any consideration for publication.
D. Is not suitable for publication in BMGN - LCHR. (Please indicate it if might be suitable for another journal.)

The editorial board is happy to receive every report that seriously engages with the paper under consideration, and is mindful of the time that the review process requires of the referee.  The board suggests a response of roughly 500 to 1,000 words, presented in essay form.  Please feel free to suggest smaller improvements or indicate specific errors which should be tidied up before publication.

Section Policies

Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Discussion

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Forum

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Signposts

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links