Peer Review Process

Peer Review Workflow and Schedule

Rigorous peer review is an essential principle of modern scholarship. Not only does it help to ensure the high quality of published work, but it also makes it possible for authors at all career stages to improve their research and their writing. Global Antiquities is committed to a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Our peer review process involves three stages: (1) the editorial stage ; (2) the review stage; and (3) the decision stage.

1. The Editorial Stage

The peer review process begins in the offices of the Editorial Board when a submission first arrives. Board members inspect the submission to determine whether it meets the journal’s minimum standards, before being sent on to peer reviewers. At this stage, the review process inspects the submission for possible plagiarism, assesses the submission’s relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, and assesses the quality of the writing.

1. Plagiarism We are committed to publishing original and impactful scholarship, and so every submission is initially evaluated for similarities with other publications (including the author’s previously published work). Global Antiquities uses Turnitin ( to ascertain a submission’s level of similarity. The general threshold is >= 20 % on Turnitin, though all submissions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Manuscripts that are determined to have an unacceptably high level of similarity with other works are rejected at this stage, and the editorial office will send a report to the author justifying the decision.

2. Scope and Focus Once a submission has passed the initial similarity check, the editorial office will evaluate its contents to determine whether their scope and focus suit the journal. If it is determined that the submission does not suit the journal, the Editorial Board will communicate that decision to the author and suggest other journals where the submission might be a better fit. In certain instances, and with the author’s permission, the Editorial Board will transfer the submission to a more suitable journal. In such cases, however, it is understood that transfer does not guarantee acceptance by that journal and that the submission still has to pass peer review.

3. Writing If a submission is determined to be sufficiently original and its contents suitable, the editorial office evaluates the writing for structure and organization, grammatical correctness, and clarity. Global Antiquities is committed to publishing scholarship in a variety of world languages, but initially will accept submissions in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, all languages spoken with near-native fluency by the Advisory Board. In cases of submissions in other languages, however, the Boards will appeal to colleagues who are near-native speakers to perform the initial written language check. The editorial office will usually make grammatical or stylistic changes (as recommended) that do not materially alter the submission. In certain instances where the writing proves too difficult to understand, the submission is returned to the author with a report that explains how/where to improve the clarity of the writing.

In the majority of instances, the Editorial Stage takes about 1-2 weeks. Submissions that do not pass this initial stage are returned to the author for revision and resubmission, while submissions that do pass proceed to the Review Stage.

2. The Review Stage

After passing the Editorial Stage, as described above, a submission proceeds to the double-blind, peer review stage. The author’s name and any identifying details are removed from the manuscript. The editorial office in consultation with the Advisory Board identifies two readers and invites them to review the submission by sending them an abstract. An appropriate reviewer is defined as one who has demonstrable qualifications (at the doctorate level) and/or suitable publication experience in the paper’s subject area. Once candidates have agreed to review the submission, a deadline is set and the manuscript is shared electronically.

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the submission's originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation, depth of research, and interdisciplinary engagement. They will have up to eight weeks to read the article, make one of the following recommendations, and write a report justifying that recommendation:

Accept as is: The reviewer determines that the paper can be published as submitted with no changes suggested.

Revisions Required: The reviewer recommends that the journal should publish the paper, once minor corrections have been made as outlined in the reviewer's report. In this instance, the suggested corrections are “minor” in that they can be carried out and verified in consultation with the editorial office, and so the submission need not be resubmitted for peer review.

Resubmit for Review (= “Revise and resubmit”): The reviewer advises that the journal should publish the paper only after major revisions and/or corrections are undertaken, as outlined in the reader report. “Major” revisions are distinguished from “minor” revisions in that they cannot be made by the editorial office, but must be undertaken by the author, and the revised draft must then be resubmitted. The previous reviewers have a chance to offer a decision after determining whether or not the revised manuscript addresses their concerns adequately. Under certain circumstances, however, the revised manuscript may be subject to a new round of peer-review with new reviewers.

Decline Submission: The reviewer recommends that the journal not publish the paper even if the author makes major revisions.

The Editorial Board reviews the reports. If the readers’ consensus is to reject the paper, the peer review process ends here. The decision along with the two readers’ reports are sent to the author. If the two reports differ substantially from one another, or if a report does not substantiate its ultimate recommendation, the manuscript is sent to a third reader. In cases where one reader raises concerns that fundamentally undermine the paper, a submission may be rejected without appealing to a third reader, even if the other reader report recommends publication.

All reports are sent to the authors (including third readers’ reports, when available) with the reviewers’ identities concealed at all stages of the process. While the specific timelines will vary with the available readers’ schedules and obligations, the Review Stage is usually completed within eight weeks.

3. The Decision Stage

The third stage of the peer review process involves cases in which the reviewers have recommended a paper for publication. Once a revised manuscript has been resubmitted, the submission along with the original and the readers’ reports are collected into a portfolio and reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board. [N.b. a board member who has acted either as a peer reviewer or has performed “minor” revisions cannot also perform this final review.] The editor reviews the submission portfolio and makes one of the following decisions:

Accept as is: The editor determines that the paper can now be published as submitted with no further changes suggested. The peer review process ends here. The author is informed and congratulated on the happy outcome, and the submission can now be scheduled for publication. 

Revisions Required: The editor decides that the paper should be published, once further minor corrections have been made by the editorial office.

Resubmit for Review (= “Revise and resubmit”): The editor decides that the journal should publish the paper only after further major revisions and/or corrections are undertaken by the author and then resubmitted.

Decline Submission: The editor decides that the journal will not publish or reconsider the paper even if the author makes major revisions.

Manuscripts accepted provisionally for publication are returned to the authors for revision, and a timeline for resubmission is set. The resubmitted manuscripts are then added to the submission portfolio, which the editor again reviews. In some instances, the editor may ask for multiple rounds of revisions, or share relevant portions of the submission portfolio with peer reviewers from stage 2 for feedback.

Submissions that pass stage 3 are scheduled for publication. In all decisions to accept a submission for publication, it is understood that all papers (even those recommended for publication “as is”) may yet undergo further formatting and/or copy editing by the editorial office.