Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

European Hebrew Journal (EHJ) applies an anonymous double-blind peer review model intended to support scholarly quality, methodological rigor, academic integrity, editorial independence, and responsible scholarly communication.

EHJ is committed to maintaining transparent editorial procedures consistent with recognized standards of scholarly publishing and responsible peer review.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the editorial management.

At this stage, submissions are evaluated with regard to:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• originality and scholarly character of the manuscript;
• basic methodological quality;
• language and structural adequacy;
• compliance with submission requirements and journal policies.

Manuscripts considered outside the scope of the journal or insufficiently prepared for peer review may be declined prior to external review.

Initial editorial screening does not constitute formal peer review.


2. Preliminary Editorial Consultation

For highly specialized topics, members of the Editorial Board may occasionally be consulted regarding the general suitability of manuscripts for external review.

Such consultation serves an advisory function only and does not constitute formal peer review or editorial acceptance.

Final editorial decisions remain independent of advisory consultation.


3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts considered suitable following editorial screening proceed to anonymous double-blind peer review.

Reviewers are selected by the editorial management on the basis of subject expertise, academic qualifications, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

EHJ normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers possessing relevant expertise and not directly involved in the submitted work.

Under the double-blind review model:

• reviewer identities are concealed from authors;
• author identities are concealed from reviewers;
• anonymization procedures may be applied before manuscripts are sent for review.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts according to:

• originality;
• methodological rigor;
• scholarly significance;
• contribution to existing research;
• quality and use of sources and literature;
• clarity of argumentation;
• relevance to the field;
• suitability for publication within the journal scope.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and confidential evaluations.


4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• maintain confidentiality regarding manuscripts under review;
• provide fair, objective, and scholarly assessments;
• avoid personal criticism;
• disclose conflicts of interest;
• decline review invitations where expertise is insufficient or impartial evaluation cannot be ensured;
• identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or substantial overlap with previously published work.

Reviewers must not use unpublished material obtained during peer review for personal research or advantage.


5. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, editorial decisions may include:

• Accept without revisions;
• Accept with minor revisions;
• Major revisions required;
• Resubmission for further review;
• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations remain advisory.

Final decisions are made by the editorial management based upon:

• reviewer reports;
• editorial assessment;
• journal standards;
• relevance to the journal scope;
• overall scholarly suitability for publication.

5A. Additional Review

EHJ normally obtains reports from at least two independent reviewers.

In exceptional circumstances, where reviewer recommendations substantially diverge or where additional subject expertise is considered necessary, the editorial management may appoint an additional reviewer.


6. Revision Process

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer comments within the indicated timeframe.

Authors may be invited to provide explanations regarding revisions made.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers when considered appropriate by the editorial team.


7. Final Decision

Final publication decisions are made by the editorial management following consideration of:

• reviewer reports;
• revised submissions;
• editorial assessment;
• ethical considerations;
• journal standards.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee immediate publication and may depend upon issue planning and editorial scheduling.

7A. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written request to the editorial office.

Appeals will be evaluated by the editorial management, which may consult additional reviewers or editorial board members where considered appropriate.

The decision reached following the appeal process shall be considered final.


8. Review Duration

Review timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and editorial workflow.

EHJ seeks to maintain reasonable review periods while prioritizing scholarly quality, fairness, and thorough evaluation over speed.


9. Publication Stage

Accepted manuscripts proceed through editorial preparation stages, which may include:

• copyediting;
• metadata preparation;
• technical editing;
• proofreading;
• final publication.

Publication scheduling may depend upon issue preparation and editorial workflow.


10. Ethical Principles and Conflicts of Interest

EHJ expects authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members to adhere to principles of:

• confidentiality;
• objectivity;
• scholarly integrity;
• transparency;
• responsible academic conduct.

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed whenever relevant.

Individuals with conflicts of interest that may compromise impartial judgment should not participate in editorial or review decisions.

10A. Research Integrity

EHJ is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity. Allegations of research misconduct will be assessed in accordance with internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

The journal reserves the right to investigate suspected cases of:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• redundant publication;
• fabricated or falsified research findings;
• manipulated materials;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• other forms of academic misconduct.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, corrections, or take other editorial actions considered appropriate under the circumstances.


11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by institutional affiliation, nationality, religion, political position, financial interest, or personal relationships.

The journal seeks to preserve fairness, transparency, and scholarly independence throughout the review process.