All submissions for publication are anonymously examined by two reviewers. The reviewers are solicited by the editors after consulting the editorial board and all reports are sent by the editors to all members of the editorial board.
These reviewers are mostly chosen among the members of the scientific committee: Alganza Roldán (Grenada), Federica Bessone (Torino), Josine Blok (Utrecht), Claude Calame (EHESS), Véronique Dasen (Fribourg), Therese Fuhrer (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München), Allison Glazebrook (Brock University), Barbara Gold (Hamilton), Henriette Harich (Basel), Emily Hemelrijk (Amsterdam), Brooke Holmes (Princeton), Helen King (Open University), David Konstan (Brown University), Rebecca Langlands (Exeter), Donald Lateiner (Ohio Wesleyan University), Charilaos Michalopoulos (Thrace), Sheila Murnaghan (Pennsylvania), Gabriella Pironti (EPHE), James Robson (Open University), Violaine Sebillotte-Cuchet (Paris 1), Alison Sharrock (Manchester), Giulia Sissa (UCLA), Thomas Späeth (Bern), Jane Stevenson (Aberdeen), Craig Williams (Illinois).
However, as our priority is to have submitted papers refereed by specialists who have written dissertations, books or papers on the author, the theme, and the approach chosen in individual submissions, in order to provide those submitting manuscripts with the most informed and insightful assessments as possible, we often solicit some reviewers from outside the scientific board.
We request that referees submit their readers’ reports within two months after receiving articles. We seek reports of one or two (or more) pages, in which the reviewer initially summarizes the paper, gives her/his assessment of the thesis argued, the methods employed, the approach adopted, the results obtained, and the bibliography cited, and then provides detailed comments, proceeding page by page.
In the event of differing assessments, a third reviewer is solicited. We send the third reviewer the anonymized paper and the reports of the two reviewers (including their names, in order that the third reviewer can better evaluate the situation) by asking her or him to take a position in relation to the two first assessments.
Since the launching of Eugesta in 2011, we have gradually changed our policy in order to adapt it to different situations resulting from various reviewing experiences.
- The assessments of the two reviewers are positive, recommending that the paper be published but only after the author has rewritten it by taking into account, as much as possible, criticisms and suggestions made by the reviewers.
- The assessments of the two reviewers are totally negative, leading to the conclusion that the paper is not suitable for publication.
- If the assessments of the two or one of the reviewers include major criticisms, and recommend rewriting and resubmitting, there are two possibilities. We ask the author to rewrite her/his paper by taking into account both reports and to send us the new paper within two months, and we send it back to the same reviewers. If the work needed is considered too important to undertake in two months, we suggest that the author re-submit the following year.
In any case, the author is invited to accompany her/his rewritten paper with a note in which she/he explains why and how she/he has followed (or not) the different critics and suggestions of the reviewers.
As the result of our current reviewing process, on average, almost half of papers are rejected and the number of pages is on average 250 pages (from 196 to 350 pages).
The final decision for publishing or not publishing a paper results from a discussion among the two editors and the members of this editorial board. We are well aware that a good journal cannot be produced without the work and the specialized expertise of the reviewers. We therefore want to make clear that as a rule we respect and conform to the recommendations of the reviewers except in some problematic cases, in which the final decision reverts to the editorial board.