The content of the Society’s journal, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, is managed solely by the journal’s Editors and Editorial Board. The Royal Historical Society delegates all editorial decision-making to the Journal’s Editors and does not engage in disputes between authors and the Editors. RHS membership status, as well as previous submission success (or otherwise), is not taken into consideration during the review process.
As a peer-reviewed journal, the Editors of the Transactions are under no obligation to send submitted manuscripts for review. They are also under no obligation to follow reviewer recommendations, favourable or negative.
Peer review is undertaken on condition of anonymity and the Editors will not disclose the identity of peer reviewers to authors or others. Our Editors are ultimately responsible for the selection of all its content, and their editorial decisions may be informed by issues unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as suitability for the journal as outlined in the Information for Authors.
The Editors reserve the right to reject any article at any time before publication, including after acceptance if concerns arise about the integrity of the work.
Please note: the journal will not accept resubmissions from the same author within 24 months of the previous submission of an article.
If you wish to raise a complaint
Authors are able to appeal to the Editorial Board against acceptance decisions if they have a demonstrable valid reason for doing so. Authors must raise complaints, in writing, in the first instance with the Editor who handled their submission.
Editors are able to provide one round of additional feedback to authors clarifying how they reached their decision, but will not engage in further discussion. Editors may elect not to submit additional feedback if it is felt that the original decision commentary was sufficiently clear.
If, following the editor’s response to your complaint, you are still not satisfied, you may make an appeal to the journal’s Editorial Board.
How do I appeal?
Appeals of Editorial decisions will only be considered if they refer to a specific manuscript and must be based on evidence that either: (1) an editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript; or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision making process was compromised.
Step 1: Contact the Journal Office via email (firstname.lastname@example.org). Your email should situate the grounds for complaint within the appeals framework as given above.
Step 2: The Office will appoint the Editorial Board member closest in expertise to the topic of the disputed work to consider your appeal. All appeal requests are handled on a case-by-case basis and the decision of the Editorial Board is final.
The Editorial Board member’s investigation will be restricted to the parameters of our appeals framework, namely whether (1) an Editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript, or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision making process was compromised. If the Editorial Board does not consider either (1) or (2) to be true, you will be informed in writing that the appeal has been denied.
If your appeal is granted, your manuscript will undergo further assessment by an independent reviewer and a new final decision will be made on your manuscript. This decision will be final and no further complaints or appeals will be considered. Granting of appeal does not guarantee final acceptance into the Journal.
Please note that new submissions to the journal take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time for the journal to reach a conclusion about your appeal.