Journal of History and Culture is an annual peer-reviewed international journal of the Department of History, Gauhati University, Assam, India.

This journal is an interdisciplinary academic exposition of research publications focussing broadly on History and Culture intersecting over time and space with ethnology, gender, ecology, cultural rights, anthropology, geography, etc.

The papers are double-blind peer reviewed.

Overview

• The Research Articles should contain an abstract of not more than 300 words. The abstract should mention the keywords.

• Introduction of the paper should include objectives.

• Word limits (approximate) : Research Article : 2500-7000, Research Report : 2000-5000, Review Essay : 1500-3000, and Book Review : 1000-2000.

• Papers may be submitted by email to jhc@gauhati.ac.in.

• There is NO publication fee.

Undertaking

In the submission mail, the authors are to provide an undertaking to the effect that

• 1. The article / report / essay / review submitted is original and has not been published before.

  2. All ethical standards relating to methodology and citations have been adhered to.

  3. In case a Research Article is from more than one author, the Corresponding Author (who will be considered as the main author with full responsibility of authorship), must be clearly indicated to facilitate correspondence.

Referencing Style

• References or citations in the text should be in parentheses with author name(s) and year of publication, and page number e.g. [Roy :1984:32]; More than one page, [Roy:1984:32-45].

• When citing a paper written by three or more authors, write the name of the first author, followed by ‘et al’ e.g: [Barpujari, et.al. :1999:78-89]. However, all authors must be given in the references at the end of the paper.

• Where there are two or more papers by the same author in one year, distinguishing letter (a,b,c…..) should be added to the year e.g. [Sen:1997 b: 17 ], [Sen: 1997 c: 24 ]

• Avoid using ibid and op. cit, in the text.

Endnotes and References (to be listed at the end of the article)

1. Journal : Trigger, Bruce G. (1982) Ethno History : Problems and Prospects in Ethnohistory. Vol 29, No. 1 (Winter) Duke University Press 1-19.

2. Book : Sharma, R. S., (2005) India’s Ancient Past, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

3. Article / Chapter in Book: Sharma, Sarita, (2009) Development, Women and Environment in Northeast India in J Kumar. (ed.) ‘Northeast Issues and Trends’, New Delhi, CBS publishers. 238-51

4. Seminar Paper : Naik, Subham, (1978) Historical Perspective of the Identity of the Adivasis in Bihar ; paper presented in National Seminar on ‘Identity and Social Change in Bihar’ University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, November 23-24, 2010.

5. Report : Mills, A.J.M. 1984. Report on the Province of Assam Reprint, Guwahati : Assam Publication Board .

6. Thesis / Dissertation: Barua, Dina, (1981) Ecological Influence on the Socio Cultural System of the Nepalis in Assam, Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), KKH Library, Gauhati University, Guwahati.

7. Website: Smith, William. (2009) Post-Colonial Immigrants in Western Europe in ‘Journal of Contemporary Society’, Kolkata: Bhavani Press Accessed on May 24, 2013. url.: www.migrantedducation.org.
   Internet sources should mention the complete url with the date and time of accession.

8. Quotation : No quote marks should be used in quotations that are more than 40 words. Quotations with more than 40 words should be mentioned in a separate indented paragraph.

9. Italics : Italics should be used for non-English words.

10. Number : Numbers 0 to 9 should be written in words. Numbers 10 and above,in numerals.

Overview

The review process includes the evaluation of the relevance and originality of the paper, ensuring that previous work in the field is taken into account, checking the methodology, and to verifying whether the conclusions are supported by adequate evidence or not. Furthermore a reviewer should enforce correct usage of English and their conformity with the MLA (7th edition) referencing style. The review should also incorporate comments which would help the author(s) to improve their paper in a way that the paper could be accepted for publication.

On the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations and assessments, the journal editors will make the final decision on whether or not to publish the paper.

Recommendation

Recommendation on a paper falls into one of three categories. Our third category (rejection) is different from the rejection category which is commonly used in scientific journal because Gauhati University Journal of History and Culture does not fully reject any paper. We are making a selection as to which papers go into the printed version of the journal and which are to be published elsewhere. Here are some guidelines about how to use the different categories:

Accept : the paper will be published (in the print version) without any or only very minor (e.g. typographical) changes. Usually, the editors use this category when the paper is well written, uses proper English, is clear and gives conclusion which is adequately supported with / by evidence. The paper also should include a review of other relevant work in the field.

Accept with revisions : The paper requires revisions. The paper may require additional explanations of the methodology / analysis / results or interpretation or suffer from minor problems such as typographical errors or wrong format of references. Such a paper should not show any major problems such as neglecting prior research, methodological problems, prolixity, etc.

Reject : The editors choose this option if they do not want to recommend this paper to be published in our journal. A paper can be rejected if it duplicates work of other already published work, does not significantly add to the existing knowledge of the field or the conclusions are not adequately suported. However, in this case, the editors usually provide comments about the paper which can help the author in improving the manuscript for further publication. The editors can also ask the author to hand in the paper again for later approval.

Comments to the Editors

Optionally, reviewers can give comments which are not to be read by the author. (e.g. ethical issues).

Comments for the Editors and Author

This is the major section of the review. The section should start with a short summary of the article. This helps the editors to get to know what the paper is about.

In order to clarify the reasoning for acceptance, revision or rejection, it should consist of the evaluation of the quality with award of marks on the range of 1 to 10 on the following criteria:

1. Is the content accurate, balanced and interesting?

2. Does the paper make a useful methodological/empirical/ theoretical contribution?

3. Is the background of the paper sufficient?

4. Is the description of the methods used sufficient? Are all maps, figures or tables necessary and sufficient?

5. Are the results clear and robust?

6. Are the inferences legitimate?

7. Is the quality of writing/expressions clear?

8. How far is the work original?

Any paper securing 5 and below marks on any of the above criteria shall not be considered for publication. Reviewers would be sent a proforma that includes the above criteria along with the write-up of the contributor.

In order to help the author, a reviewer may also highlight problems and suggest improvement of the paper in a way that the paper could be accepted for subsequent publication.