Peer Review Process

Reviewer Guidelines JDHASA

The DHASA journal has committed it to an open peer review process. That means in our case that both the author and reviewer identities are available to all parties. In applying this policy, we aim to achieve a high level of transparency for the authors and reviewers, reduce conflict of interest and improve the quality of reviews. Additionally, we hope that it will provide a friendly, constructive, and inclusive review process. 

We commit ourselves to the ADHO standards for reviewers. In particular, this means that reviews need to be content-orientated, as opposed to targeting an author or institution, and be constructive. 

“Whatever you may think privately of the proposal or project, and whatever you may know (or think you know) about the author, it is essential that you be uncompromisingly professional and courteous in reviewing all submissions. Rudeness of any sort is destructive to the morale of the community and is absolutely unacceptable in a review.” (ADHO)

Submissions are reviewed regarding certain criteria: Applicability, Quality of Content, Clarity of the Submission, Formal Criteria (such as Layout and Spelling/Language), and Engagement with relevant scholarship. Reviewers rate the quality of the criteria on a scale from 1-5. The reviewer then gives a recommendation on the acceptance status of the paper (Accept, Accept with minor revisions, Accept with major revisions, Reject).

Reviewers can also include feedback on all of these aspects, as well as general feedback for the author, in the form of free text. Reviewers for the DHASA journal work with great effort for the benefit of the authors and the quality of the DHASA journal in general. They aim to provide feedback within 4-6 weeks after publication (unless stated otherwise in the call for papers). Please, abstain from inquiries on the state of your submission before the reviewing period has passed.

Do’s and Don’ts for Reviewers


  • Identify the weak points in a submission and address them in a constructive manner.
  • Provide helpful pointers on how the author can improve their submission.
  • Indicate clearly which modifications the author should provide.
  • Discuss possible conflicts of interest with the editorial team.


  • Attack the author(s) on a personal level.
  • Use rude or abusive language (“This paper is nonsense.”, “Your introduction is sketchy”, “This work is a disgrace to the community.”).
  • Be vague (“This section seems weak.”).

Do’s and Don’ts for Authors


  • Make sure the submission fits the scope of the journal, and the Call for Papers.
  • Make sure your work is in a mature enough state that allows for publication.
  • Make sure the submission satisfies the formal criteria of the journal and the scientific community (e.g., layout, spelling and language, citations).
  • Make sure your data is accessible and/or describe it in a manner that is clearly understandable by the reader/reviewer.
  • When resubmitting, address each of the reviewers comments.
  • If you submit as a non-English native, have at least one native speaker proofread your paper prior to submission.


  • Target the reviewer(s) for their reviews. If you feel the form of the review does not conform with the guidelines stated above, contact the editors (
  • Ignore reviewers comments and requests for revisions.
  • Contact editors of reviewers privately. All communication about your submission should go through our submission system.