Peer Review

This journal follows a double-blind review process. After acceptance by the Editorial Board, the Scientific Editor sends the submitted papers to two external reviewers, one chosen by the Editor and the other chosen by International and National Scientific Committee.

The reviewers will support the Scientific Editor and Editorial Board in making a decision, according to the procedure described below.

Reviewers are independent scholars, with expertise on the submitted articles, and do not come from the same institution of the authors. They are selected according to the subject of the manuscript in the fields of the Art, Archeology, History and Epigraphy of the Near and Middle East (Western Asia), Egypt, North Africa, Greece, and the Mediterranean (History of Art and Archeology of the Near East and the Middle East, of Levantine and Mediterranean Archaeology, of History and Epigraphy, of Egyptology, of Phoenician-Punica Archaeology, of Islamic Archeology, and of Iran Studies) and any other discipline accepted by the Journal. Reviewers must produce a vote evaluation based on five concise judgement parameters: completeness and reliability of data base; bibliographic accuracy and updating; inner coherence of the paper; rank of innovation; impact in the field of study, corroborating their votes with a synthetic written evaluation of the articles (maximum 500 words).

After the reviewers’ evaluation, the Scientific Editor and the Editorial Board accept the papers with the following possibilities (A to D):

A) Ready to be published
B) To be published with minor corrections
C) To be published after a major revision (afterwards, it needs a second reading by the same reviewers)
D) Rejected

Afterwards, articles elected to publication are again examined by the Editorial Staff, for formal assessment and editing.

Peer reviewers assist the Scientific Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist anonymously the author in improving the paper. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript should notify the Scientific Editor and retreat himself from the process.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Authors can reject a referee in case of conflict of interest or any kind (religious, gender of political) of discrimination. In this case, the Scientific Editor with the Scientific Committee will appoint a new reviewer.