Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

For Reviewers

Peer reviewers of submissions to RIHA Journal are kindly asked to follow the guidelines given below.

Guidelines

Double-blind peer review: Suitable submissions to RIHA Journal undergo a double-blind peer-review process: The author's identity is not revealed to the reviewers, and vice versa. The responsible RIHA institute determines two reviewers. If their conclusions are not unanimous, a third reviewer may be consulted.
Please note, however, that if an article is published, the names of the approving reviewers are published as well (only the names, not the reviews themselves).

Time schedule: Reviews are requested within 4 weeks from notification and should be sent to the local editor as e-mail attachment.

Lenght: Reviews should be 1-3 pages in length.

Criteria: Reviews 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 are asked to include an overall statement:
• "I recommend it for publication (as is)."
• "I recommend it for publication with minor changes" (to be verified by the Local Editor)
• "Invitation to rework the article and resubmit it to the peer reviewer"
• "I do not recommend it for publication."

Final decision: Reviewers are encouraged to make suggestions for changes and improvements to the author.
Please note: Reviews should provide the editors with information and arguments upon which they can base their decisions. The editors of RIHA Journal take seriously the reviewers' criticisms. However, final decisions about whether or in what form a manuscript is published are left to the discretion of the editors.

>> pdf