Peer review policy of Hiperboreea

The practice of peer review is to ensure that good scholarship and good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good academic publishing and is carried out on all reputable scholarly journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the JHG. All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editor in Chief first evaluates all manuscripts. It is possible, though rare, for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or the language it is not good, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will generally be informed within 4 weeks of receipt.

Papers that meet the minimum criteria are normally forwarded to two or three expert referees for review.

Type of peer review

This  journal  employs  double  blind  reviewing,  where  both  the  referee  and  author remain anonymous throughout the process.

How the referee is selected

Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise.

Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

•  Is original
•  Is methodologically sound
•  Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
•  Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
•  Correctly references previous relevant work

How long does the review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 1 or 2 months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought: in such cases, the period required for review may extend beyond the norm of

1-2 weeks. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.