History and Art Journal

Curation Policy & Evaluation Process

All records and manuscripts submitted to History and Art Journal undergo an editorial curation process before acceptance to ensure academic quality and thematic coherence.

Once this initial screening is passed, manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review system. Throughout this process, the anonymity of both the authors and the external reviewers is strictly preserved.

The editorial team reviews and evaluates submissions based on the following criteria:

• Relevance: Direct alignment with the fields of history, art, cultural heritage, and documentary studies.

• Academic Rigor: Clarity of argumentation, solid methodology, and structural clarity.

• Sources & Citation: Proper citation practices and responsible use of sources.

• Ethics & Legal Standards: Compliance with ethical standards, including copyright and image reproduction rights.

• Alignment: Consistency with the journal’s scope and mission.

Submissions that meet these criteria are accepted for publication in the journal. Manuscripts that require modifications may be returned to the authors with editorial recommendations. The editorial team reserves the right to decline submissions that do not fit the journal’s academic standards or thematic focus.

Plagiarism & Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Plagiarism Detection: History and Art Journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and redundant publication. All submitted manuscripts are routinely screened during the initial editorial filtering stage using search engine verification, open-access repository databases, and rigorous manual comparison methods. If academic misconduct, uncredited copying, or paraphrasing without proper citation is detected at any stage of the editorial process, the manuscript will be rejected immediately.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): In accordance with international publication ethics, Artificial Intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or similar Large Language Models) cannot be listed as authors or co-authors on any manuscript. AI tools lack the legal and intellectual capacity to take responsibility for submitted work.

• Writing and Analysis: Authors may use AI tools solely to improve the readability, language, or grammar of their text. The substantive generation of text, core arguments, or analytical insights by AI is strictly prohibited. The critical evaluation, intellectual framework, and primary interpretations of the paper must remain exclusively the work of the human authors. Submissions displaying a pattern of being substantially or structurally generated by AI tools will face immediate Desk Rejection. If AI tools are used for technical support or data processing, authors must explicitly disclose this within the acknowledgements or methodology section. 

• References and Citations: Authors are entirely responsible for the factual accuracy of their bibliographies. Fabricated, hallucinated, or unverified citations generated by AI tools will result in the immediate rejection of the submission.

Peer Review Policy and Evaluation Process

1. Initial Editorial Desk Review

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary screening by the Editor-in-Chief and the designated Section Editors. This initial review ensures that the submission aligns strictly with the journal's thematic scope, adheres to formatting guidelines, and meets basic academic integrity standards. Manuscripts that fail to meet these baseline criteria are rejected at this stage (Desk Rejection).

2. External Double-Anonymised Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are formally assigned to a Section Editor and subjected to a rigorous double-anonymised peer review process.

• Anonymity: Both the reviewers' and the authors' identities are kept strictly confidential throughout the entire process. Editorial files are meticulously reviewed and cleaned to remove any direct or indirect identification.

• Reviewer Selection: Section Editors utilize our centralized reviewer database to select and invite a minimum of two independent, external experts whose specific research backgrounds perfectly fit the thematic and methodological scope of the paper.

• Timelines: The target timeframe to secure external reviewers is 7 days. Once an invitation is formally accepted, reviewers are granted a standard evaluation period of 4 weeks (28 days) to submit their comprehensive referee report.

3. Editorial Decision

Upon receiving the independent referee evaluation files, the Section Editor compiles the recommendations and submits a proposal to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and will be communicated to the authors as one of the following:

• Accept Submission (with or without minor typographical corrections)

• Revisions Required (major or minor structural/theoretical amendments)

• Resubmit for Review (requiring a completely new evaluation cycle)

• Decline Submission