At the Historical Journal, we have a general readership of historians. Accepted articles usually rest on impressive primary source material, and they also make clear the interventions they are making in terms of larger debates and historiography. They should also reach across subfields into broader themes, debates, or historiographies. So, not every article of publishable quality would necessarily be publishable in the HJ. We take this remit seriously, and it guides our hand in terms of acceptances. Even articles of merit and excellent scholarship of interest to people in a subfield may not make the HJ cut. We also work to ensure that we obtain a wide geographical, chronological, and thematic spread since we cover the globe, post-1500. We generally have a considerable backlog of articles awaiting print publication, so we are quite discerning in terms of what comes through the pipeline.

By contrast, we are fairly liberal in obtaining peer reviews, so an article being sent out is not an indication of editorial endorsement (unlike some other journals where an article might pass through multiple hurdles on its way to external peer review). Any genuinely scholarly and historical article which seems journal-worthy will likely be sent out, as we believe this is a fairer system of robust peer review. We seek out experts across the world to review for us, and we have an amazing rota of reviewers. We are so grateful that you have joined this global scholarly endeavour.

If you feel that this article is of interest to people in a subfield, but not beyond it, then this is a reasonable and indeed helpful point to make. It might well mean you give a reject verdict but offer some encouraging suggestions and comments to the author. This kind of verdict happens regularly, and its frequency is the natural consequence of a liberal review policy and a strict acceptance policy. Telling an author that they have an intriguing piece which would best be submitted elsewhere (with possible suggestions for other venues) can be a painful but necessary act for a fellow scholar, and likely to be more productive in the long run. It's cleaner and therefore kinder than dragging it out, suggesting revisions or giving a revise and resubmit verdict if the article seems unlikely to make the cut.

However, we hope that reviewers are aware that we have many submissions from early career scholars, and that even more established scholars can find the process bruising. We try our best to be encouraging even when there may be significant problems with a given article. So, even when (perhaps especially when) a rejection verdict is given, it is helpful to give constructive feedback to authors and to highlight whatever promising aspects there may be. The word “fail” is one the editors avoid using. We try to treat authors as we would like to be treated, and we are grateful that reviewers do the same. We so appreciate the brilliant work that our reviewers do, and we hope that this guide provides a helpful elucidation of our editorial processes. Please do be in touch with the editor(s) should you have any questions. Again, thank you so much for your willingness to review articles for the HJ, without which we could not function.

Posted January 2021