Peer-review policy


All the papers submitted to the journal Arheologia are peer-reviewed. The scientific examination of the copyrighted materials performed by the reviewers is to objectively evaluate the quality of the submitted articles and to determine the level of its compliance with research, literary and ethical standards.

Principles followed by the reviewers

1. Expert evaluation should help the author to improve the quality of the text of the article, and also help the Editor-in-chief to decide on the publication.

2. A reviewer who does not consider himself an expert in the subject area of ​​the article or understands that himself/herself will not be able to submit a review in a timely manner, should immediately notify the Editor-in-chief.

3. The reviewer must not be the author or co-author of the submitted review paper. This also applies to the scientific supervisors of the degree holders and/or employees of the department in which the author works.

4. The reviewer should not accept the review of the manuscript in the presence of a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration or other relations with any authors or organizations associated with the article.

5. Any manuscript received by an expert for the review is a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with anyone other than these.

6. The reviewer should be objective. It is inadmissible to make personal comments in the review to the author. The reviewer should express his/her opinion clearly and reasonably.

7. The reviewer should give an objective conclusion on the sufficiency of citation of articles already published in the literature and the latest literature on the subject used. If necessary, the reviewer should recommend the authors to minimize the self-citation as much as possible. In cases when the issue or the area of the study was not developed by anyone else except the authors the self-citation is possible, but it should not exceed 20%.

8. A reviewer should not use information and ideas from a review article for personal gain, while respecting the principle of confidentiality.

9. The reviewer should identify published articles that are relevant to the peer-reviewed article and are not cited by the author. Any assertion in a review that some observations, conclusion, or argument from a peer-reviewed article have already been encountered in the literature should be accompanied by an accurate bibliographical reference to the source of the information. The reviewer should also pay attention of the Editor-in-chief to a significant similarity or partial coincidence of the peer-reviewed article with any other previously published article.

10. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism or falsification of data, he/she must immediately contact the editorial board for further review or collective review of the author’s article, with further discussion of its results at the meeting of the editorial board.

Cooperation with the reviewers

The Editor-in-chief and the executive secretary make a decision as to the selection of the appropriate reviewer for the submitted paper. The whole unpublished manuscript is presented to the reviewers only after their agreement to perform the review.  The reviewers are matched to the article according to their close research interests, experience in studying the topic and/or working in the area under the study. However, those working in the same project or the same department with one of the authors are not proposed to be the reviewers of a paper to keep the objectiveness of the review.

The type of the reviewing

The 'double blind' reviewing is practiced by the journal Arheologia, in which the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors and the authors are likewise unknown to the reviewers.

The Editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of the journal should ensure the confidentiality of the names and other information concerning the reviewers. If necessary, when deciding whether to involve a new reviewer, the latter might be informed of the names of previous reviewers.

The schedule of the review process

10 days are taken for an initial evaluation of a paper by the Editor-in-chief and the executive secretary. At this stage it is decided whether a manuscript is original and corresponds to the aims and scope of the journal. The duration of the review analysis is close to that period, but in some cases the reviewers may take longer time for their decision. The final approval of papers and the issue of the journal is performed at the meeting of the editorial board.