There are different review processes in CEH. 

For research articles, editors read the pieces carefully and, if they meet the general criteria of the journal (chronological and geographical frameworks; historical approaches and methods; good written standard) they are sent out for double-anonymous peer review. Articles are then reviewed by three reviewers who are selected both within and beyond the editorial board. Most pieces will go through one or two rounds of revision and, if accepted, are then copyedited. We aim to publish pieces on FirstView within a year of acceptance.

For special issues and forums, proposals are reviewed by reviewers within and beyond the editorial board according to expertise. If accepted, article submissions, reviews and revisions happen in the same way as independent research articles, except reviewers are informed that the pieces are part of a bigger collection of pieces.

Review articles and historiographical essays in the “Spotlight” series are generally commissioned by the review editors. They go through an internal review process, which always involves the reviews editors and may also involve members of the editorial board.

Appeals

To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Editor and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editor. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with this Editor.

Appeals should be based on rational arguments and should refer to a specific manuscript in question. New submissions take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time for the journal to reach a conclusion about your appeal.