HoST - Journal of History of Science and Technology

1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author(s), may also assist the author(s) in improving the manuscript.

2. Promptness

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.