Editorial Process and Peer Review
Arkhaia Anatolika, The Journal of Anatolian Archaeological Studies opens its pages to original and qualified studies carried out with scientific methods, written in Turkish and English languages to bring new perspectives and filling a gap in their field in which new findings are evaluated, new approaches presented, previous studies are reevaluated. In order to be published in Arkhaia Anatolika, the manuscript is not published or under publication consideration elsewhere.
At Arkhaia Anatolika we focus on ensuring that all papers we publish are of high technical quality, and let the scientific community determine the impact of your work. Our editorial process focuses on the robustness and validity of your research, from methodological, analytical, statistical and ethical perspectives, rather than making subjective decisions on your manuscripts.
Since 2023, Arkhaia Anatolika operates a two-stage process, “Internal Review” and “External Review”, in the evaluation of the manuscripts submitted to the journal. Internal review is a phase carried out by the Editor-in-Chief, Assistant Editors and the Editorial Board. External review is the process in which at least two reviewers who are experts in the field evaluate the manuscripts with the method of “a double-blind peer review”.
Arkhaia Anatolika will not accept more than one article submission from one author for the same issue. In addition, as of 2023, one year (one volume) will have to pass before the article of the same author can be evaluated. If the article is co-authored and the author whose article was published in the previous issue is the 2nd or 3rd author in the new article, the article will be evaluated.
Manuscript submissions after 15 December 2023 will be evaluated for the next issue. Even if the manuscript was sent before this date, if their evaluation process was not completed by 31 December 2023, they will be evaluated for the next issue.
Models of Peer Review: Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Timing: Pre-publication
Number of Reviewers: Two Internal Reviewers (Editorial Review) - Two External Reviewers (Peer Review)
Mediation: Editors and Assistant Editors mediate all interactions between internal-external reviewers and authors
Reviewer interacts with: Editors
Number of days between submission & last decision: Average 70 Days / 10 Weeks
Plagiarism checks: Yes – Turnitin
Decision: In order for the article to be accepted for publication by the Editor, at least two referees must give a positive opinion.
Ethics Violations: When reviewers suspect an ethical violation, they should report it to the Editor. The editors will follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. Articles suspected of serious research misconduct may also be viewed by Arkhaia Anatolika’s ethics editor and third parties deemed appropriate by the editor.
Accepted articles are published at http://www.arkhaiaanatolika.org as they are prepared. After publication, submission manuscripts are selected for the next issue.
All articles published in the Arkhaia Anatolika are fully Open Access: immediately, freely available to read, download, and share.
Editorial Process (Internal Review)
Preliminary Review and Plagiarism Checking: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript, and validates if the theme, originality and scientific quality of the paper are fit to be published in the journal. Afterward, the Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscripts that comply with the journal’s publication policy to the Assistant Editor for editorial review. Assistant editors check every manuscript for language quality, the integrity of the figures, the detection of plagiarism, and potential conflicts of interest. All manuscripts submitted for publication to Arkhaia Anatolika are cross-checked for plagiarism using Turnitin software. A text similarity below 15% (excluding bibliography) is acceptable by the journal and a similarity of >25% is considered as high percentage of plagiarism. But even in case of 15% similarity, if the matching text is one continuous block of borrowed material, it will be considered as plagiarized text of significant concern. If the decision is not to send the manuscript for external review, the Editor-in-Chief contacts the author with the decision. If the decision is positive, the Assistant Editor determines the other two internal reviewers from the members of the Editorial Board based on their field of expertise.
You can see “Pre-Review and Plagiarism Checking Form” of Arkhaia Anatolika
Editorial Board Review: During the internal review process, the Assistant Editor determines the two internal reviewers from the members of the Editorial Board according to their field of expertise and the manuscripts are sent to both internal reviewers by “double-blind peer review” method. For this reason, reviewers don’t know the identity of the authors, and vice-versa. Reviewers and authors identity is visible to only editors (decision-making). Internal reviewers evaluate the manuscript in terms of its subject, method, and results and decide whether it should be included in the external review process for detailed evaluation. If their conclusions are not unanimous, a third reviewer may be consulted. In order for the manuscript to be included in the external review process, at least two members of the Editorial Board must give a positive opinion.
Since the “double-blind peer review” method is applied in the internal review, the manuscripts submitted by one of the Editorial Board members are also subjected to the same process and since the process is carried out by the editors, the internal reviewers cannot access the information of the author(s).
You can see “Internal Reviewer Evaluation Form” of Arkhaia Anatolika
The Peer Review Process (External Review)
Suitable submissions to Arkhaia Anatolika Journal undergo a double-blind peer review process: The author’s identity is not revealed to the reviewers, and vice versa. The responsible editor determines two reviewers. Reviewers who accept review are expected to complete their review within the time allotted to them. In special cases, additional time can be given to the referee for evaluation. If their conclusions are not unanimous, a third reviewer may be consulted. The reviewers are absolutely independent of the authors and not affiliated with the same institution. A referee’s decision is made in four categories as “acceptance without revision”, “acceptance after minor revision”, “review again after major revision”, and “rejection”. The reviewed manuscript are returned back to the corresponding author with comments and recommended revisions.
For papers “accepted without revision”, they are received and published as they are received.
For papers “accepted after minor revision”, papers are returned to corresponding authors for minor revision. And resubmitted papers are published without another full process of peer review but subjected to acceptable explanations for the points raised by referees. However, Editor may request additional review or comments on the revised paper by members of editorial board if it seems necessary.
For papers “re-review after major revision”, these papers are returned to corresponding authors for full revision. And resubmitted papers are subjected to another complete review process and acceptable explanation for the points raised by referees.
For the “rejected” papers, a letter of rejection is sent to the corresponding under by the name of Editor with reasons for rejection. Comments from referees are included.
The referee report includes evaluations on the following issues;
• Purpose of the article
• Importance of the topic
• Contribution to the literature
• Methodology
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References
Referees should act with the awareness that they are the most basic determinant of the academic quality of the article to be published in the journal and should evaluate it with a view increasing the academic quality. The manuscripts are evaluated by the referees; the final decision for acceptance will be made by the Editor/Editors. The author is to be notified within four months.
You can see “External Reviewer Evaluation Form” of Arkhaia Anatolika
Peer Review Principles for Papers Submitted by the Editorial Staff and Editorial Board Members
Editorials and analysis articles written by The Arkhaia Anatolika’s own editors do not undergo external peer review. Original research articles written by the Journal’s Editors and Editorial Board Members undergo a double-blind peer review process by at least two internal reviewers and at least two external reviewers. During this period, those editors cannot enter the journal system, user accounts are disabled.
Revising and Responding
When the submission manuscript has come back from reviewers the author(s) may be given the opportunity to revise it in accordance with the reviewer comments. Authors should address this feedback from reviewers in a response to reviewers. A response to reviewers specifies how the authors addressed each comment the reviewers made. The response to reviewers is usually organized by presenting reviewers’ comments one by one, followed by the authors’ response.
When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments you must:
• Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers.
• Describe the major revisions to your manuscript in your response letter followed by point-by-point responses to the comments raised.
• Perform any additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend (unless you feel that they would not make your paper better; if so, please provide sufficient explanation as to why you believe this to be the case in your response letter).”
• Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any points or comments you disagree with.
• Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter.
• Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature. This is in addition to describing the changes in your point by point cover letter.
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time period allotted by the editor.
Publishing and Post-Publishing Process
Turkish Language Control: All manuscripts that result in a positive referee process are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the author is asked to revise the necessary points.
English Language Check: All manuscripts that pass the Turkish language control are reviewed by the English Language Editor and, if necessary, a correction is requested from the author. If the author wishes, he can get a professional service for this.
Typesetting and Layout: Article, which is decided to be published, is sent to the publishing unit for graphic and design processes.Editors send to authors a PDF proof of the layout, including the figures for approval before publication. As soon as the editing and typesetting stages are completed and the final version is approved by authors, the manuscripts are published online in the journal website.
Copyright: Copyright transfer agreements are signed with the author(s). The authors own the copyrights of their published article and their article is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Post-Publication Commenting: Articles published in Arkhaia Anatolika are promoted on social media platforms and comments made by platform users are followed.
Data Submission to National and International Indexes: All issues of Arkhaia Anatolika, The Journal of Anatolian Archeological Studies are digitally preserved cover-to-cover, by the Electronic Publishing Compilation System (EYDeS) of the National Library of Turkey, ensuring long-term archival of all of our publications. The published issue is sent to the National Library of Turkey as one copy within 60 days. The article metadata is forwarded to the relevant indexes within 15 days.
Ethical Duties and Responsibilities
Ethical Guidelines for Authors
The author must comply with research and publication ethics.
The submitted manuscript must contain unpublished original work and not be under consideration for publication by any other journal or book, other than in oral, poster or abstract formats. The author should not attempt to duplicate publication.
Author(s) should not engage in plagiarism or in self-plagiarism.
A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information to permit others to repeat the work.
Authors should ensure the originality of the work and that they have properly cited others work in accordance with the reference format.
Any part of the submitted manuscript that derives from prior published work, including work by the same authors, must be properly cited.
Authors must obtain permission for use of any previously published materials from the original publisher.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances or interest that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the representation or interpretation of the reported research results.
Criticism of a paper in either a comment or article must be professional, substantive, and free of polemics.
Authors must follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
Authors cannot make any change on the published manuscript electronically. Therefore, authors are obliged to be very careful reviewing and correcting any errors on galley proof.
Ethical Guidelines for Editors
Editors, Editorial Board Members, and Advisory Board Members take responsibility for overseeing the integrity of Journal. Editors of journal have complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
The editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Situations that may lead to real or perceived conflicts of interest are avoided.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author.
The editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should promote the publication of a correction or retraction.
The editor ensures that all submitted articles being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
The editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors and referees.
Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Review by independent scientists is an essential component of the scientific enterprise, and all scientists have an obligation to participate in the process.
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors may also assist the authors in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
Reviewers should explain and support their judgments in such a way that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. They shall provide necessary supporting arguments and clearly express their views to the authors which should assist the authors to improvise their work.
Reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
Reviewers should notify the editor if they notice copyright infringement or plagiarism in the reviewed manuscript.
Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. It is vitally important for reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors.
Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
Reviewers should complete their reviews within a specified timeframe. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within a stipulated time, then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.