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
  • Relevance of the topic for the history of the Low Countries
  • Cursory check of the content
  • Authors guidelines sufficiently applied


On the basis of this first assessment, the editors decide if the manuscript will be reviewed or rejected. Articles accepted for review are reviewed by the Editorial Board, that 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 anonymised for the experts who review the article.

We aim to inform authors within three 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 two referee reports, the manuscript will be discussed by the Editorial Board on its next meeting. The Editorial Board’s decision is leading, the editors will judge, after careful deliberation, if they (dis)agree with the review reports.

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 and (parts of) the two anonymised referee reports. There are four possible outcomes of the review process:

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 – Low Countries Historical Review.

In the case of a ‘B’ or a ‘C’, the author is invited to revise 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. Guidelines for reviewers will be sent to you by the Managing Editor. Comments and recommendations will be treated in strict confidence. However, we expect that referees will not mind if we feel it useful to pass on all, or parts, of your comments to the author after they have been carefully anonymised.

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

  • Fit within the focus and scope of BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review
  • General structure and organisation
  • Coherence and general flow of ideas
  • Sources and interpretation
  • Interdisciplinary/comparative perspective
  • Contribution and originality


The following points should be taken into consideration, recognising that not all the aspects apply to every article and that some contributions may prompt additional questions:

  • Is the title suitably informative?
  • Are the objectives of the work clearly stated?
  • Are the methods clearly described?
  • Are the arguments sound?
  • Are the conclusions concisely presented?
  • Does the author refer to the relevant literature?
  • Does the article provide innovative insights – either in the way of evidence or interpretation – to existing historiography?
  • Does the paper discuss an issue of current concern in the field?


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 – Low Countries Historical Review. (Please indicate it if might be suitable for another journal.)

The Editorial Board appreciates 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.