Peer review is an integral component of publishing the best quality research for the journal and contributing to the archaeology and history of the ancient county of Kent. Peer review is an independent evaluation; by an expert to evaluate an article’s quality and suitability for publication in Archaeologia Cantiana (AC).

It is also a very useful source of feedback for authors which can be used to improve an article before it is published. Peer review is a collaborative process, where authors are supported by peers in their field and receive constructive support to advance their work.

The purpose of peer review is to:

1.      Aid in the vetting and selection of research for publication in AC, ensuring that the best work is taken forward.

2.      Provide suggestions for improving articles that go through review, raising the general quality of published research in the annual journal.

Archaeologia Cantiana relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles. Peer review is the best form of academic evaluation.

Process

1.      Author submits an article to the Editor.

2.      The Editor will check that the article complies with the Notes for Contributors, which is posted on the Society website. For example, with regards to formatting or language level, and will send it back to the author if changes are needed.

3.      The Editor will make the decision on whether to send the paper to peer review, based on its fit for AC and apparent academic quality.

4.      The Editor will find appropriate reviewers, either by drawing on their own network, or by asking a specialist to suggest suitable reviewers.

5.     Invitation to peer review sent out to selected reviewers.

Reviewers

• Ensure the rigorous standards of the process by taking part in the peer review system and declare any conflict of interest.

• Uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research and helping to maintain the quality/standards of AC.

• Fulfil a sense of obligation to the journal’s community and their own area of research.

• Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals/ institutions and increase their opportunities to join the AC Editorial review process.

• Can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud and other problems by their familiarity with the subject area.

• Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewer, researchers repay the same consideration they receive as authors.

What can Archaeologia Cantiana offer reviewers?

·       Keep up to date with research in Kent’s archaeology and history as well as emerging research in your discipline.

·       The opportunity to demonstrate expertise in a field – invaluable for the reviewers’ achievements and evidence of their expertise.

·       Reviewers receive a digital PDF offprint of the contribution.

The Peer Review: suitability of articles

The process is intended to describe the general basis for creating an effective review.  If you receive an invitation to review, you will need to let the editor know if you are able to complete the review within the requested deadline (within 21 days).

Consider the following questions when deciding whether to accept the invitation:

·       Do I have the appropriate expertise to review this article?

·       Have I the time to conduct this review effectively?

·       Is there any conflict of interest regarding the article or its author?

Conflicts of interest include anything that might impede the reviewer’s ability to give an unbiased assessment of the article. By only accepting to review articles they are able to assess fairly, reviewers are preserving the integrity of the peer review process.

Writing the review

Once the reviewer has read the article, they should consider the general impressions and suitability for the readership of AC. Many reviewers choose to summarise their thoughts in the first paragraphs of the review, and then, in the second half of the review, move onto a more detailed substantiation of their recommendations, with suggestions for revisions where needed. The review will be guiding the Editor when deciding on one of four routes, listed below:

1. Accept without revision: very rarely, will an article be accepted for publication without any revisions requested.

2. Minor revisions needed: the article is mostly sound, but with some small changes required to the argument, interpretation of the results, or references. This will allow both editor and author(s) to prioritise your recommendations effectively.

3. Major revisions needed: the principle of the article is sound, but it will be necessary for large changes to be made in order to prepare it for publication. The reviewer should also include recommendations for minor revisions in the review, so that the author(s) can address all of the issues with the article during the revision stage.

4. Inappropriate:  if the article is not sound in principle or methodologically or does not make any significant contribution to the field, it may be rejected by the Editor.  If the reviewer believes that there are major problems with the article, it is important to give objective reasons and evidence for this.

The reviewer may wish to consider the following aspects of the article:

1. The article’s contribution to the discipline

• Does the article contribute to the discipline?

• How significant is that contribution?

• Do the authors adequately explain the importance of the article in the discipline?

• Is the article a good fit for AC?

2. Academic rigour and accuracy

• Is the methodology or argument used in the article sound?

• Does the article make a reasonable interpretation of the data or sources?

• Is there sufficient evidence to substantiate the article’s claims?

• Are the appropriate references cited, and are there any other references that you would recommend as essential to the article?

 • Are those references cited assessed fairly by the author?

 • Is the information (e.g. data, formulae, quotations, references, tables, and figures) in the article accurate, and correct? 

3. Style and structure

• Is the structure of the article clear and well organised?

• Does the author introduce and contextualise the aims of the article effectively?

• Does the author summarise the conclusions of the article effectively?

• Is the language in the article clear, and correct?

• Does the abstract accurately present the article’s aims, argument, and conclusions?

Submitting your review

Once submitted, the Editor will read and consider the review and will decide on how to progress with the article. The Editor will collate the reviewer’s recommendations and send them to the author.  The reviewer may be called upon to review the article again once the author has had a chance to make the necessary changes. For most articles, there will be one or occasionally two revision stages, depending on the number and nature of revisions needed.  If the article is accepted, the final files will be handed over by the author so that the publication process can begin.

Jason Mazzocchi

Editor, Archaeologia Cantiana