Peer reviewer instructions

Journal of Global History publishes scholarship that examines structures, processes, actors, and theories of global historical significance. The journal could not function without the dedicated and thoughtful work of peer reviewers from around the world, and the editors are grateful to all colleagues who have contributed to the vitality of our discipline. We provide the following peer reviewer instructions, which have been adapted from the template generously shared by the editors of French History.

We are conscious that many reviewers – and especially first-time reviewers – are given little guidance on how to do peer review. While JGH has published a range of excellent research since our first issue appeared in 2006, we take our responsibility regarding the diversity and representativeness of our fields very seriously and aim to promote a range of perspectives and voices in the journal through constructive, critical engagement. We encourage reviewers to evaluate the submissions they receive with these goals in mind.  

While every submission is different, and every reviewer brings their own experience and expertise, we have drawn up the following suggestions that reviewers may want to consider.

We encourage reviewers to treat submissions as they would like their own work to be treated. Reviewers should bear in mind that the journal regularly publishes work from researchers at a range of career stages, from diverse backgrounds, and working in different fields both within and beyond academia. Even experienced researchers can find the process of undergoing review challenging. The review process should be rigorous, but it should always be constructive and courteous too. We encourage reviewers to frame their comments in a positive and collegial manner. Reviews, where possible, should reflect on a submission’s strengths as well as areas for improvement. Disagreement is part of scholarly discussion, and not necessarily grounds to recommend rejecting a submission.

Reviews should be clear about the relative importance of suggested changes, from those that are necessary before publication, to those that are suggestions or queries. We also encourage reviewers to be specific. When recommending areas of scholarship that a submission has overlooked, for instance, it is more helpful to provide references to specific works than to include only the name of an author or a reference to a subfield.

Reviewers may want to consider the following areas when responding to submissions. The suggestions on this list are neither exhaustive, nor should reviewers feel obliged to comment on all of the suggested areas for every submission:

• Fit: Is the Journal of Global History the right avenue for this article? How does the article contribute to the study of global history? How does the author explain the broader significance of the study beyond its immediate evidence and arguments?
• Evidence: Does the author offer sufficient and convincing evidence to support the argument? Does the submission overlook any obvious, important, or relevant sources? Does it include a clear and consistent method for interpreting the evidence it uses? Peer review can also be an opportunity to correct inaccuracies and challenge unsupported assumptions.
• Secondary literature: Does the submission discuss relevant and important scholarship by historians and other researchers where this exists? Does it engage fairly with what previous authors have argued? Are there any readings the author should engage with in a revised version? Do the references fully reflect the breadth and diversity of the field and the scholars working in it? Reviewers should consider issues of the systemic omission of work by women and scholars from the Global South, or work published in different languages.
• Methods: Is there a clear explanation of the methods the piece adopts? Does the piece use up-to-date, specialist terminology? Are specialist terms clearly explained for broader audiences? Although suggestions for alternative approaches and methodologies can be useful, peer review is not the right forum for policing inter- and intra-disciplinary disagreements.
• Argument: Taken on its own terms, is the argument of the piece clear, logical, and consistent? Does the piece explain the importance and originality of its claims? 
• Style and formatting: Is the article well-written, clear, and consistent with the tone of academic research? Please note that for many of our authors, English is not their first language. Reviewers are cautioned against making assumptions about the significance of an article and its arguments on the basis of grammatical errors, presentation issues, or writing style. Please note that submissions will pass through several stages of editing and proofreading before they are published. Please keep any comments on writing style and presentation constructive. Do not feel obliged to identify specific grammar and spelling problems in detail.

A rejection from the journal is not necessarily an indictment of the research, as there are questions of fit, originality, or clarity that mean that not all work is suitable for the journal’s broad audience. Where a piece is unlikely to be suitable for Journal of Global History without major changes, a recommendation by reviewers to reject can be more helpful – and more succinct – than suggesting extensive revisions. Recommendations to reject should normally include encouragement to the author and feedback on the strengths of their submission as well as the reasons why the piece is unsuitable for publication in Journal of Global History.

The editors of JGH are grateful for all of work that our reviewers do. We hope that this guide provides some helpful insights into how we think reviewing should work.

Please get in touch with the editors should you have any questions.

Peer review guidance

Peer reviewers can access a number of resources to assist them with their peer reviewing duties:

• How to peer review journal articles: a practical introduction to conducting peer reviews, especially for those who are new to the process
• Ethics in peer review
• Online peer review systems, and how to anonymously annotate manuscripts
• Peer review FAQs

Reviewer benefits

Peer review is fundamental both to the quality and rigour of the scholarship we publish and the smooth running of our journals. Peer review is typically an unpaid activity carried out by scholars as a means of contributing to their field. 

Why peer review?

1. To learn more about the editorial process.
2. To keep up to date with novel research in your field.
3. To demonstrate your expertise in a field, and fulfil a professional responsibility to contribute that expertise to others as they develop their research.

Formal benefits for reviewers

Cambridge University Press is grateful to all the peer reviewers that support our journals. We are pleased to be able to offer a 30% discount on all Cambridge books to all peer reviewers. Please contact your journal editorial team if you have reviewed for one of our journals and did not receive a code in your review acknowledgement email.