For Reviewers

RIHA Journal is a peer-reviewed journal. Reviewers of submissions to RIHA Journal are kindly asked to follow the guidelines given below.

General information: Suitable submissions to RIHA Journal undergo a double-blind peer-review process. The responsible RIHA institute determines two reviewers. If their conclusions are not unanimous, a third reviewer is consulted. If an article is published, the names of the approving reviewers will be included at the head of the article.
Once the manuscript in question is ready for being reviewed, reviewers receive a link and a login to the internal area of the RIHA Journal website such that they can view the manuscript.
Reviews are due within 4 weeks from notification and should be sent to the local editor as e-mail attachment.
Reviews should be 1-3 pages in length and should offer substantial reasons for accepting or not accepting a given article for publication. In particular, reviewers are asked to specify in which way and to what extent the article satisfies, or fails to satisfy, the following criteria of evaluation:

General Quality
- Does the article reflect the current state of research?
- Are the arguments consistent? Is the line of reasoning comprehensible and stringent?
- Is the article written in a clear and readable style?

Relevance
- Is the article's subject area of more than merely local interest?
- Does the article significantly contribute to (international) art historical discourse?

Originality
- Does the article offer new research material?
- Or, does it offer new perspectives on established issues?
- Or, does it call attention to neglected but important subject areas?

At the top of their reviews, reviewers should include an overall statement:
- "I recommend it for publication (as is) / (with revisions)."
- "I do not recommend it for publication."

Reviewers are encouraged to make suggestions for changes and improvements to the author.