Peer Review | Peer Reviewing for Ancient Mesoamerica | Ethics | Resources

This journal uses ScholarOne (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/atm) for online submission and peer review. ScholarOne is a “comprehensive workflow-management system for scholarly journals, books and conferences”. Further information on ScholarOne can be found here, and queries can be directed to the Editorial Office.

Peer Reviewing for Ancient Mesoamerica

Ancient Mesoamerica operates a double-anonymous peer review policy.

For independent manuscripts and those pertaining to a Special Section, each contribution will be reviewed by at least three, and some times as many as five, outside readers who will make recommendations to the Editors concerning revision of the manuscript, acceptance or rejection. Manuscripts that are part of a Compact Section are reviewed by a minimum of two readers and sometimes as many as five.

Reviewers may choose to remain anonymous; in any case, all reviewers’ comments will be passed on to the authors. Reviewers should note that:

• Papers or proposals that are sent out for review are confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed with anyone other than those involved in the peer review process.
• Once you have completed your review, or if you have rejected the invitation to review, you must not share or discuss the work or any related information, even if the work is to be published.

Please note that, as part of their review, Reviewers will be asked to respond to the following questions/prompts:

• Please provide an assessment of the main argument of the manuscript. Also, comment on whether this topic is timely.
• Does the author make significant, original, or interesting points that are of interest to the readership of the journal?
• Is the manuscript clearly and well written? Does the author avoid jargon, or if used, is jargon explained? Is the writing style appropriate for this journal?
• Does the "introduction" clearly identify the main topic and does the "conclusion" adequately wrap-up the manuscript, providing outcomes? Is the structure of the manuscript well organized?
• Is the manuscript scientifically sound, i.e. is there clear logic, sound methods, and convincing presentation of evidence? Are the parts of the manuscript well organized into a coherent presentation of ideas?
• Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for Ancient Mesoamerica? If not, what would you consider to be an appropriate length?
• Are there any parts of the manuscript which are superfluous? If so, please explain.
• Are all appropriate sources referenced, including those which historically contextualize the manuscript? Please provide comments on the references. Suggestions for references to your work or your peers' work must be scientifically necessary and not made with the intention of increasing one's own or one's peers' citations.
• Is the manuscript up to date, i.e. is the most current research on this topic cited? Should additional references be added? If so, please provide citation information.
• Is the title of the manuscript appropriate, i.e. does it sufficiently capture the main idea? Is the title creative?
• What are the strengths of this contribution to Ancient Mesoamerica? What are the deficiencies in this manuscript>
• Are the illustrations of high quality? If not, please provide details.
• Do you suggest the author include more illustrations? If so, please provide details.
• How else can the manuscript be improved? Please provide details.

Peer Reviewers should be aware of the ethical impacts of the peer review process, and in particular should ensure they declare any competing interests. Please see Ancient Mesoamerica’s information pages on Publishing Ethics, as well as our pages on Ethics in Peer Review.

Queries about Ancient Mesoamerica's peer review processes may be sent to [email protected].

Ethics

Guidance on ethical peer review can be found on Cambridge Core here.

Resources

Introductory resources for peer reviewers can be found on Cambridge Core here.