Information for reviewers

RiMe. Rivista dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Europa Mediterranea is a refereed, open access journal, founded by the Institute of History of Mediterranean Europe (ISEM) of the italian National Research Council (CNR), that publishes theoretical perspectives, review articles, methodological developments, empirical research in the field of the History of Europe and the Mediterranean, from the Middle Ages to the Contemporaneity.

RiMe targets scholars from different countries, bodies and research groups in formal, non-formal and informal contexts, in order to promote and support their collaboration around common scientific interests on themes and motives related to the historical identity of Mediterranean Europe and their varied external relations.

Topics covered concern any aspects of History of Mediterranean Europe, including:

• Medieval History
• Modern History
• Contemporary History
• Geography
• Archaeology
• History of Arts
• Humanities and Digital Humanities
• Open and online History learning
• Mobile technologies and social media
• Game-based History teaching
• Formal, non-formal and informal History learning
• Technology for History teaching
• Digital contents and educational resources on History
• Research methods in History
• Public History

RiMe accepts contributions on the above topics all year round. Alternatively, contributions can be sent in reply to the Journal Calls for Papers. The following types of contributions are welcome:

• Theoretical articles (about 6,500 words)
• Research articles (about 6,500 words)
• Conference and Book Reviews (about 6,500 words)

All contributions are subject to a "double blind peer review" process, i.e. the contribution is anonymized and sent to at least two referees, whose names are not revealed to the author (ensuring a blind review).
Authors are kindly requested to refer to papers on the same theme previously published in RiMe and, where relevant, to cite them in their submission.

How to do the review

To help them with the reviewing task, referees complete a specially produced "Review form". This form presents all the main aspects on which the Referee is required to give its opinion about the article with regard to:

1. overall quality of the submission, including its relevance to the History and Humanities fields and degree of originality/novelty - the Referee would assign a score on a four-point sliding scale;
2. the clarity and coherence of the author’s argumentation - the Referee would assign a score on a four-point sliding scale;
3. pertinence to the journal’s themes (see the topics' list above) - the Referee would assign a score on a four-point sliding scale;
4. in addition, if the submission was made in response to a Call for Papers on a specific theme, the Referee must rate its pertinence to the stated call theme/s;
5. comments and suggestions for the author/s;
6. possible comments for the Editorial Board (not visible to author/s).

Next, the Referee must make a recommendation based on its evaluation of the manuscript. The Referee may encounter the following 6 options:

 Accept Submission: this is rarely used, but indicates that the submission should be accepted with no changes.
 Revisions Required: this is commonly used, and indicates that the author needs to make some small changes before publication. The changes will be reviewed by the editor and no further peer review will be required.
 Resubmit for Review: this indicates that major changes are required, but the submission does show promise. The author will need to make the requested changes and go through another round of peer review, possibly with you or with a new reviewer.
 Suggest to resubmit Elsewhere: the submission looks good, but isn't suitable for this journal. Typically it falls outside the scope of the journal.
 Decline Submission: this indicates that the submission is too far below the standards of the journal and is beyond revision.
 See comments: this indicates to see comments for the Editorial Board (see Review form's point 6 above).