The peer-review process at Disaster and Resilience is designed to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, ensuring that all published works contribute meaningfully to the field of historical research. Our peer-review process is rigorous, transparent, and fair, aimed at providing authors with constructive feedback while maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening
   Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. This step involves evaluating the manuscript for alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, checking for adherence to formatting guidelines, and conducting a plagiarism check using Turnitin. To proceed further, manuscripts must meet a similarity threshold of no more than 25%. The editor also ensures that the manuscript fits the journal’s academic and ethical standards before sending it for peer review. This initial review typically takes between one to four weeks.
   
   
2. Assignment to Peer Reviewers
   Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are then subjected to double-anonymous peer-review process, where the reviewers remain anonymous, but the authors' identities are known to the reviewers.
   
   
3. Review Evaluation Criteria
   Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the originality of the research, the clarity of argumentation, the methodological rigor, and the overall contribution to historical scholarship. The reviewers are also asked to identify any ethical concerns, including potential conflicts of interest, and to ensure that sources and references are appropriately cited.
   
   
4. Editorial Decision
   Once the reviewers have submitted their reports, the editorial team evaluates the feedback and makes one of the following editorial decisions:
• Accept the manuscript for publication.
• Minor revisions are required, with authors asked to address specific comments.
• Major revisions are required, with a more extensive manuscript overhaul needed.
• Resubmit for review following substantial revisions.
• Reject the manuscript if it does not meet the journal’s standards.
  In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, a third reviewer may be consulted, and their decision will be final. The managing editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and the quality of revisions, if applicable.

5. Revision Process
   Authors receiving a decision to revise their manuscript must address all reviewer comments and resubmit within the timeframe specified by the editorial board. It may be rejected if the revised manuscript is not received within the required period. The revision process is reviewed either by the original reviewers or by the editorial team, depending on the extent of revisions made.
   
   
6. Final Decision and Publication
   Once the revisions have been approved, the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors are informed of the final decision and the timeline for publication. Accepted articles are copyedited, proofread, and published in the upcoming issue of Disaster and Resilience.
   
   
7. Review Timeframe
   The entire peer-review process, from submission to the final decision, typically takes 1 to 4 months. Authors are notified at each stage of the review process to ensure transparency.
   
   
8. Confidentiality and Anonymity
   All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process, and manuscripts must not be shared or discussed outside the review process. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.