Peer review process
Peer review policy
The practice of peer review is a central part of scientific publishing. To ensure the high scientific standards of Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology (SIMA), all submitted manuscripts will be peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editors-in-chief will evaluate all incoming manuscripts. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least two experts for review. The review may be performed by members of the Editorial Board or external reviewers. Manuscripts outside the aims and scope of the series, with scientific flaws, or in poor English language, will be rejected directly. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed as soon as possible.
Type of peer review
SIMA employs single blind reviewing, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process. Referees are matched to manuscripts according to their expertise.
The manuscript will normally be reviewed within three months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report be unduly delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought.
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- is original
- is methodologically sound
- follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- correctly references previous relevant work
Referees are not expected to correct or copy edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
Editors’ final decision and report
Referees advise the Editors-in-chief, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations and comments made by the referees.