Peer review process

Anales de Arqueología y Etnología considers unpublished and original articles for publication, which will be subject to evaluation.

The scientific quality and originality of research articles are subject to an international anonymous (single-blind) peer review process. The peer review process includes evaluation by two judges from different institutions and universities external to the Journal's publishing body. If there is disagreement regarding the recommendations, the recommendations are referred to a third reviewer. The authors are expected to have one month to report their opinions. Depending on the referees' opinions, the journal will inform the author of the feasibility of publishing their work.

At the authors' request, the anonymity of the authors' work will be guaranteed.

Anales de Arqueología y Etnología reserves the right not to submit for review any papers that do not comply with the guidelines set forth in the "Publication Guidelines" and reserves the right to make formal changes to the accepted original text.

Authors are responsible for the content and views expressed, which do not necessarily coincide with those of the journal. The article may be approved, approved with corrections, or rejected by the reviewers. If corrections are required, the article will be returned to the authors, who must heed the reviewers' suggestions. Based on the reviewers' opinions, the Editorial Committee will approve or reject the article for publication.

REFEREE REPORT

Article Evaluation Form

This journal publishes theoretical and methodological contributions, and original case studies on topics of archeology, anthropology and related disciplines.

Title of Paper:
Author:
1. Is the paper original and/or does it contribute to the development of knowledge in the field? 
2. Is the interpretation of experimental data credible?
3. Is there sufficient evidence offered?
4. If any part of the manuscript is not clear, please write a note in the margin.
5. Do you think it is necessary to include all the illustrations and tables?
6. Does the abstract clearly express the content of the paper?
7. Does the manuscript contain a complete and representative set of references?
8. Recommendations to the Editorial Committee:
    a. It should be published without modifications.
    b. It should be accepted with minor corrections.
    c. It should be accepted with major corrections.
    d. Rejected the manuscript for the reasons expressed.
Do you wish to be identified?
Would you like to review the manuscript after the corrections have been made?
In case you reject the manuscript, please give well-founded opinions and offer further suggestions.
Obserrvations