Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

The Isin Journal for Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages (IJAHAL) relies on the expertise and professionalism of its reviewers to maintain high academic and ethical standards in scholarly publishing. The journal welcomes reviewers from archaeology, ancient history, cultural heritage, ancient languages, anthropology, and related disciplines.

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-anonymized peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions objectively, confidentially, and constructively.

General Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Maintain Confidentiality
    Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed with others without editorial permission.
  2. Declare Conflicts of Interest
    Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if they cannot provide an impartial evaluation.
  3. Review Within the Deadline
    Timely review is essential for maintaining an efficient editorial process. If unable to complete the review on time, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly.
  4. Evaluate Academic Quality
    Reviewers should assess:
    • Originality and scholarly contribution
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope
    • Methodological soundness
    • Clarity of writing and organization
    • Quality of references and documentation
    • Ethical compliance and academic integrity
  5. Report Ethical Concerns
    Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices should be reported to the editor immediately.

Comments to Authors

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, constructive, and respectful feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.

Review comments should:

  • Be objective and professional
  • Focus on the manuscript rather than the author
  • Include specific suggestions for improvement
  • Reference page or section numbers where appropriate
  • Distinguish between major and minor revisions

Reviewers should avoid:

  • Revealing their identity
  • Using offensive or dismissive language
  • Providing direct publication decisions in comments to authors

Editorial Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editorial board.

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process aims to:

  • Ensure the quality and originality of published research
  • Support authors in improving their work
  • Promote ethical and rigorous scholarship
  • Advance research in archaeology, history, heritage, and ancient languages