Historical Geography Journal ISSN 2782-6511 (Print) | ISSN 3034-5286 (Online)

1. Influence on editorial decisions

Reviewing helps the editorial board make decisions about publication and, through appropriate interaction with the authors, can also help the author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal academic communication. The publisher shares the view that all academics who want to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work on reviewing their papers.

2. Performance

Any selected reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review a given paper or does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the editorial board of the Historical Geography Journal and ask to be excluded from the review process of said paper.

3. Confidentiality

Any paper received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened or discussed with any persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editorial board.

4. Requirements for the paper and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.

5. Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the paper. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the paper. The reviewer should also draw the editor’s attention to the discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the paper under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer’s scholarly competence.

6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

• 6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted papers cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
• 6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of papers in cases of conflicts of interest due to competitive, cooperative, and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations related to the submitted work.