This journal uses double-blind peer review process. The Editor-in-chief of the journal first of all checks the received articles to ensure they adhere to the formal requirements listed in the Guidelines for Authors. The editor, consulting with other members of the Editorial Board if needed, chooses two reviewers to conduct double blind peer-reviewing. Two main criteria are strictly followed in the selection of reviewers. Firstly, reviewers must not have any conflict of interest with the author(s) of the paper, and secondly, the reviewer must be an expert in the subject of the paper under review. The reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript can be accepted without corrections, with minimal or substantial corrections, or should be rejected. The peer review form is designed to assist reviewers in evaluating manuscripts. The form has standardised questions and possible answers, along with space left for a more extensive assessment of the article. The reviewer enters their final decision on the form as to whether they recommend the article for publication or not, and provides comments regarding the extent of correction needed.
Manuscripts are reviewed by two experts within 4-6 weeks. If the conclusions of the peer reviewers differ, a third reviewer is appointed.
Peer review reports are presented to the Lietuvos archeologija Editorial Board. Author(s) receives anonymous peer review reports with recommendations on how to improve the text. Authors should submit revised texts with corrections and explanations (if necessary) to the Editorial Board. Taking into account the reviewer’s conclusions, the final decision regarding the article’s reviewing is made by the Editor-in-chief. The Editor-in-chief may consult with the Editorial Board concerning decisions on the article at all stages of its review.
Book and article reviews, as well as discussions, are generally not peer-reviewed. However, their suitability for the journal is always evaluated by the Editorial Board.
Recommendations to reviewers
- to submit in writing objective feedback about the work’s academic merits and scientific value, along with grounds for the reviewer’s opinion; to determine the work’s scientific value and originality, and offer ways in which it may be improved; this is to be done so as to ensure that articles receiving positive assessments are of a high scientific level;
- to submit the review as soon as possible, without exceeding a period of one month, or as per a set agreement with the Editorial board;
- to maintain confidentiality of the review process by not sharing or discussing the work or review with any third parties, and not revealing any information provided in the document under review without having first received permission to do so from the editors;
- to adhere to peer-reviewing ethical procedures;
- to give advance notice to the editor if there are any possible personal or financial conflicts of interest (see the sections Ethical principles and Conflict of interests); to refuse to review a work in each instance where there may be a potential conflict;
- to identify any ethical questions, for example, an obvious likeness of the manuscript under review to any other work published elsewhere;
- to draw attention to the fact of a relevant work by other scientists not having been cited.
The journal seeks to provide authors with clear feedback that would help them in improving the quality of their work. As such, the journal asks (yet does not demand) that reviewers submit their reviews on the review form sent to them. Specific critical comments or recommendations should clearly relate to specific elements of the article. Reviews can and should be critical, however, we ask reviewers to keep in mind that disrespectful language or criticism ad hominem may be considered as a reflection of the assessor’s subjectivity.