Peer Review Policy
At Uirtus, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity, rigor, and scholarly excellence. To ensure the quality and credibility of all published research, every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the procedures, criteria, and ethical responsibilities that guide our review process.
1. Introduction
Thank you for contributing to Uirtus, a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing research in the Arts and Humanities. The peer review process is essential to maintaining academic standards, and we greatly value the expertise and thoughtful evaluations of our reviewers. Your constructive, fair, and timely feedback plays a crucial role in shaping the scholarly record.
2. Peer Review Model
Uirtus employs a double-blind peer review process:
- Reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.
- Reviewers must not disclose their identity to the authors.
- Any conflicts of interest must be declared before accepting a review assignment.
3. Review Procedure
Initial Editorial Screening
Each manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial team to assess its relevance to the journal’s scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with ethical standards.
- Reviewer Assignment
- Submissions deemed suitable are assigned to two independent reviewers with subject-matter expertise.
- Evaluation
- Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the journal’s criteria (see below) and submit a detailed report with a recommendation.
- Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ assessments, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit
- Reject
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to the following dimensions:
a) Originality and Contribution
Does the manuscript offer new insights, arguments, or findings?
Is the topic relevant to current debates in the Arts and Humanities?
b) Theoretical and Methodological Rigor
Is the theoretical framework clearly defined and well-articulated?
Are the research methods appropriate, transparent, and rigorously applied?
c) Argumentation and Clarity
Is the argument logically developed and coherent?
Are claims substantiated with appropriate evidence and citations?
d) Structure and Organization
Does the manuscript follow a logical academic structure (e.g., introduction, literature review, analysis, conclusion)?
Is the overall organization clear and reader-friendly?
e) Language and Style
Is the manuscript written in clear and formal academic language?
Are there grammatical or stylistic issues that hinder comprehension?
f) Referencing and Ethical Compliance
Are all sources properly cited in MLA format?
Are there any signs of plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns?
5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout and after the review process.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
Provide objective, respectful, and constructive feedback.
Report any ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism or data fabrication.
6. Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following outcomes:
Accept as is – The manuscript meets all standards and requires no changes.
Accept with minor revisions – The manuscript is strong but needs slight adjustments.
Revise and resubmit – The manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvements.
Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scholarly standards.
7. Review Timeline
The peer review process is typically completed within 2 to 3 weeks of reviewer acceptance.
The overall editorial process, including revisions and final decisions, usually takes 4 to 8 weeks.
Reviewers are encouraged to notify the editorial team promptly if additional time is needed.
8. Submission of Review Reports
Reviewers should submit their evaluations using the journal’s email, in the form of a structured review report or annotated comments.
9. Recognition and Benefits
We recognize and appreciate the valuable contributions of our reviewers. Regular reviewers may:
Be acknowledged on the Uirtus
Receive certificates of appreciation upon request.
Be considered for editorial board invitations.
10. Contact Information
For inquiries related to the peer review process, please contact us at: