Article Submissions

It is recommended that articles are uploaded to the online system ( If the online system is not responsive, submissions can be sent by e-mail to the “” or “”. Manuscripts must be submitted as word documents (.doc and .docx extensions are accepted).

Article submissions should be prepared in compliance with the editorial criteria outlined below and according to the guidelines provided on our website.

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, English and German 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, the articles submitted to Arkhaia Anatolika, should not be previously published or submitted for publication in another journal/book.

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 Journal 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 referees who are experts in the field evaluate the manuscripts with the method of “a 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 60 Days / 9 Weeks

Plagiarism checks: Yes – Turnitin

Internal Review (2-4 weeks)

Editorial Process: The Editor-in-Chief checks the manuscripts to check if it fits the journal's purpose and scope and adheres to principles of ethical research and writing standards. Afterward, the Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscripts that comply with the journal's publication policy to the Assistant Editor for editorial review. The Assistant Editor examines the manuscripts for compliance with the journal writing rules and checks the manuscripts for plagiarism through Turnitin. The Assistant Editor determines the other two internal reviewers from the members of the Editorial Board based on their field of expertise.

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 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).

External Review (3-4 weeks)

The Peer Review Process: 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 Arkhaia Anatolika determines two reviewers. Reviewers who accept review are expected to complete their review within 21 days. In special cases, 7 days 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.

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.

Publishing Process

The Editor-in-Chief reads the manuscript accepted for publication. It is then submitted to the Language Editor for English Editing. The author is requested to revise the text in line with the demands of the Editor-in-Chief and Language Editor. The revised text is sent to the typesetting by the Editor-in-Chief. Articles are directed to the author(s) for final checks before they are published. Articles approved by the author are published in online on the journal website. The authors own the copyright to their published work and their work is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Arkhaia Anatolika does not charge any fees for articles submitted for publication, including the internal review process, external review process and publication phase. 

Post-Publication Commenting

Articles published in Arkhaia Anatolika are promoted on social media platforms and comments made by platform users are followed.

Spelling Rules

  • Articles submitted to Arkhaia Anatolika, The Journal of Anatolian Archaeological Studies for publication should not be previously published in or submitted to another journal/book.
  • The text of the article should be written in A4 paper size, in 11 pt. “Book Antiqua” with 9 pt. abstract and footnotes.
  • Footnotes should be continuously numbered from beginning to end.
  • The articles can be written in Turkish, English and German languages. An article written in Turkish should have an abstract in English and Turkish while all the articles written in a language other than Turkish should have an abstract. The title of the article should be submitted in both languages.
  • Abstracts of the articles should contain between 200 and 500 words; the aim of the study, its findings, the scope and the content should be summarized in the abstract. Also an extensive summary / structured abstract can be added to the end of the article.
  • Between 5 and 7 words should be chosen as keywords for each article.
  • The subtitles within the articles should be written in bold lowercase letters.
  • The submission letter should cover precisely the name and surname of the authors, academic titles, and the institutions where they work, their correspondence and mail addresses and telephones numbers.
  • All authors obtain their own ORCID identifier which will be included on their article.
  • For all visuals, which will be used in the articles, such as pictures, drawings and maps, the abbreviation of "fig." should be used numbered sequentially.
  • Within the text "fig." should between parentheses. If there are more than two consecutive figures, a hyphen should be placed between the numbers: (figs. 3-5) and if the figures are not consecutive, the numbers should be separated by a comma and a blank space: (figs. 3, 5).
  • The figures should be independent of the text in "jpeg" or "tiff" format with a resolution of 300 dpi.
  • The author(s) is/are responsible for the figures excerpted from other sources. For this reason, the source must be specified.
  • The bibliography section should be placed at the end of the articles. Sources used in the text should be given in abbreviated form as follows: author's surname, publication date, and page number (sheet, and figure no, if any). The same format should be used even for sources that are used only once in the Article.
  • If more than one work by an author is cited; list works by same authors in order of year of publication (earliest first) and list works by same author and year alphabetically by title (add letter to year).
  • In the bibliography section, if an author has two surnames, these surnames should be separated by a hyphen without leaving any blank space (Işınak-Bruce). 
  • In the bibliography section, all references used in the article should be written in APA style (
  • AJA Abbreviations should be used for abbreviations of periodicals. If the name of the periodical is not included in this list, the full name of the periodical should be written (


Method of Citing References in Arkhaia Anatolika

PDF Download

Book by a single author

Coulton, J. J. (1976). The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa. Clarendon Press.

1 Coulton 1976, 77.


Book by two authors

Machatschek, A. & Schwarz, M. (1981). Bauforschungen in Selge. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.

1 Machatschek & Schwarz 1981, 118, fig. 7.


Book by three or more authors

İplikçioğlu, B., Çelgin, G. & Çelgin, A. V. (1991). Epigraphische Forschungen in Termessos und seinem Territorium 1. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1 İplikçioğlu et al. 1991, 15-18.


Chapter in an edited work

Özgan, R. (1997). Zwei hellenistische Werke aus Stratonikeia. In I. Jenkins & G. B. Waywell (Eds.), Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese (pp. 114-119). British Museum Press.

1 Özgan 1997, 115, fig. 2a-b.

Journal article

Büyüközer, A. (2015). Lagina Hekate Kutsal Alanı Güney Propylonu. Cedrus, III, 67-87.

1 Büyüközer 2015, 70-75.


Articles by two authors

Dedeoğlu, F. & Ozan, A. (2016). What Happened in Inland Southwestern Anatolia Before 5500 BC? A Review of the Archaeological Evidence from the Selcen-Örenarası Settlement. Olba, XXIV, 1-30.

1 Dedeoğlu & Ozan 2016, 25-28.


Articles by three or more authors

Andreau, J., Schmitt-Pantel, P. & Schnapp, A. (1978). Paul Veyne et l’évergétisme. AnnÉconSocCiv, 33(2), 307-325.

1 Andreau et al. 1978, 307-308.


Papers in proceeding books

Bingöl, O. (2012). Neue Erkenntnisse am Tempel der Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia. In T. Schulz (Ed.) Dipteros und Pseudodipteros. Bauhistorische und Archäologische Forschungen. Internationale Tagung (13-15 November 2009, Regensburg), Byzas 12, 113-121.

1 Bingöl 2012, 115.


Citation for an author with more than one cited publication within the same year

Bruns-Özgan, C. (2002a). Knidos Antik Kent Rehberi. Pozitif Matbaacılık.

1 Bruns-Özgan 2002a, 25.

Bruns-Özgan, C. (2002b). Eine frühkaiserzeitliche Stoa in Knidos und ihre Funde. In C. Berns, H. von Hesberg, L. Vandeput & M. Waelkens (Eds.), Patris und Imperium, BABesch Supplement 8, 247-256.

2 Bruns-Özgan 2002b, 250, fig. 3.


Thesis-Dissertation (PhD & MA)

Gider-Büyüközer, Z. (2013). Karia Bölgesi Dor Mimarisi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Selçuk University.

1 Gider-Büyüközer 2013, 256.


Translated Works

De Bernardi Ferrero, D. (1990). Batı Anadolu’nun Eski Çağ Tiyatroları (Trans. E. Özbayoğlu). Dönmez Offset.

1 De Bernardi Ferrero 1990, 115-118.


Electronic Sources

Muth, S. (2006). Bild & Text auf Römischen Münzen. Zur Seltenheit einer scheinbar naheliegenden Medienkombination. Ikonotexte – Duale Mediensituationen. Ed. P. von Möllendorf. Online-Publikation der Akten einer interdisziplinären Tagung in Gießen / Rauischholzen. Feb. 17–19, 2006. url: /bild - und - text - auf - romischen - munzen / file /muth.pdf (15 Mart 2015).

1 Muth 2006, 14-17.


Greek Texts and Fonts

For Greek text, Unicode font, which has multi-language support (polytonic), should be used. The preferred fonts are "Times New Roman", "Palatino Linotype", "Palaios" and "New Athena Unicode". If any other font is used for special symbols and characters, the editors should be informed.

Ancient Greek and Latin Auhtors and Works

Abbreviations for ancient authors and their Works in Der Neue Pauly Enzyklopädie der Antike in Antike Autoren list.

Hdt. I, 171.

Strab. XIV, 2, 16 (C 656)

Plin. nat. V, 107.

Greek and Latin sources should not be included in the bibliography unless there is original text edition or a comparative criticism made over the translations.

Plin. epist.       (Plinius Minor) G. Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Epistulae; Text and Translate: Pliny, Letters. With an English translation by W. Melmoth, (rev. W. H. L. Hutchinson). London 1963 (The Loeb Classical Library).

Plinius, Genç Plinius’un Anadolu Mektupları. (Çev.) Ç. Dürüşken – E. Özbayoğlu. İstanbul 2001.


Epigraphic corpora

For abbreviation of corpus DGE (Diccionario Griego-Español) List III and Suppl. III (

If you are referring to an inscription in Corpus or defined with a number in the compilation;

En.: I.Knidos, nr. 6.

If a particular line / line of an inscription is to be referred to;

I.Knidos, nr. 15 (l. 2); I.Knidos, nr. 15 (ll. 2-3).

If referred to an explanation or a footnote in the Corpus text;

I.Knidos, 63.

I.Knidos, 52, fn. 12.


For Bibliography

I.Knidos  =   Blümel, W. (1992). Die Inschriften von Knidos, Teil I. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Bd. 41, Bonn.


Suggestions for other abbreviations







cat. no.

catalogue number










for example

Ed. / Eds.




et al.

et alii


et cetera






id est


















translated form