Reviewer Guidelines for the Journal of the Heritage of Southwest Asia
Authors submit their manuscripts electronically via the online manuscript submission system at Sinaweb. Each manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief for relevancy to the journal's scope, which encompasses interdisciplinary research in the sciences of cultural heritage, art, and architecture of Southwest Asia. If retained, the manuscript is assigned to Internal Reviewers to check the format of the submitted manuscript and to provide internal comments on the suitability of the manuscript for further processing, which is completed within 3 days.
Upon Receipt of the Invitation Email to Review
- Read the article abstract to determine whether the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review within the specified time period (typically 4-6 weeks, aligned with international standards such as those from Elsevier and Wiley journals).
- You are required to accept or decline the article for review using the links provided in the email.
- If declining, please state the reason and, if possible, suggest colleagues who may be able to review the manuscript.
- To accept the invitation, access the Sinaweb reviewing system directly by clicking the link in the email.
All article files are provided to reviewers in PDF format. Please write your comments in the system and, if necessary, on the file for the authors.
If you have a time constraint or conflict of interest, inform the Editor-in-Chief via email to receive instructions. They may extend the deadline or reassign the review as appropriate.
Do not discuss the paper with its authors during or after the review process. Although it may seem reasonable to clarify points of difficulty or disagreement directly with an author—especially if you generally favor publication and do not mind revealing your identity—this practice is prohibited, as other reviewers and the editor may hold differing opinions, and the author may be misled by "clearing things up" with the reviewer who contacted them directly.
The manuscript provided for review is a privileged document. Protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite the manuscript or refer to its contents before publication, and do not use the information for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues.
In your comments for the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of the paper (see the next section); suggested revisions should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Organize your review with an introductory paragraph that summarizes the major findings of the article, provides your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. Follow this paragraph with specific, numbered comments, which may be subdivided into major and minor points if appropriate (numbering facilitates the editor's letter to the author and the evaluation of the author's rebuttal). Present criticism dispassionately; offensive remarks are unacceptable and contrary to the ethical standards of international journals.
Enter confidential remarks for the Editor-in-Chief in the designated box. Inform the Editor-in-Chief of your recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) by selecting the appropriate option. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief; do not state your recommendation in the portion of the review that will be sent to the author.
After completing your review, submit your evaluation report via the system. No separate copy is needed, as it will be saved in your Reviewing History.
---
The Review Process
Adopt a positive, impartial, yet critical attitude toward the manuscript, with the aim of promoting effective, accurate, and relevant scholarly communication in heritage studies.
When reviewing, consider the following aspects (aligned with COPE and ICMJE guidelines for international compliance):
- Significance to the target scholarly community: Does the work advance knowledge in Southwest Asian heritage studies?
- Originality: Is the research innovative and does it contribute uniquely?
- Appropriateness of methods or analytical design: Are historical, archaeological, or interpretive approaches rigorous and suitable?
- Appropriateness of analyses: Are qualitative/quantitative methods (e.g., statistical if applicable) sound?
- Literature citations: Are references comprehensive, up-to-date, and relevant to global heritage scholarship?
- Adequacy of methods: Are fieldwork, archival, or interpretive methods ethically and methodologically robust?
- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation: Do findings logically follow from evidence, avoiding overgeneralization?
- Relevance of discussion: Does it contextualize results within broader Southwest Asian and international heritage discourses?
- Organization and structure: Does the manuscript have a logical flow and is it concise?
- Adequacy of title and abstract: Do they accurately reflect the content and attract interdisciplinary readers?
- Appropriateness of figures, tables, and visuals: Are they clear, relevant, and ethically sourced (e.g., permissions for heritage images)?
- Appropriateness of supplemental material: If provided, is it necessary and well-integrated?
- Length: Is it proportionate to the content, avoiding unnecessary verbosity?
- Relevance of results: Are they credible, well-presented, and tied to the research question?
- References: Up-to-date and relevant? Any key omissions in recent heritage literature?
- Figures/tables: Relevant, with clear legends and titles?
- Overall presentation: Including writing style and clarity (English or Persian, per journal policy).
You are not required to correct stylistic, syntactic, or grammatical deficiencies, but any assistance in clarifying ambiguous phrasing is appreciated. Highlight the use of jargon, misspellings of place names/terms, outdated terminology, or incorrect nomenclature for artifacts/cultures.
Your criticisms, arguments, and suggestions will be most useful to the editor and author if they are carefully documented with evidence. Avoid dogmatic or dismissive statements, particularly regarding the novelty of the work—substantiate your claims. Recommendations are gratefully received but not binding, as editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations from multiple sources (per standard practices in international journals).
On the review form, indicate acceptability (e.g., accept; accept with minor/major revisions; reject; convert to a shorter format such as a research note).
Very few papers qualify for immediate, unconditional acceptance. Recommend rejection if there are serious flaws in design, data interpretation, or ethics that cannot be remedied, or if language/organization prevents critical review of the manuscript. If deficiencies can be corrected within a reasonable period, recommend revision, which may warrant a second review if extensive.
---
Publication Policies and Ethics
The editorial team relies on reviewers to detect ethical issues before publication, ensuring compliance with international standards. Key policies (adapted from COPE and CSE standards):
Be alert for:
- Plagiarism: Not limited to text; includes figures, tables, or ideas copied without permission. Paraphrasing alone may constitute infringement if the structure/sequence is similar. Data presentation is protectable.
- Missing or incomplete attribution: Ensure credit via references; flag omissions or errors.
- Dual submission/publication: Check citations for overlaps; vigilance aids detection.
- Conflicts of interest: Disclose author affiliations (e.g., funding from heritage sites); self-disclose yours, which may lead to reassignment.
If an author is from your institution, declare it immediately. Communicate all suspicions confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief. Never contact authors directly. The journal follows COPE procedures for investigations.
These guidelines are based on those provided by the Council of Science Editors (CSE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring alignment with international standards.
---
Ensuring a Blind Peer Review
To maintain double-blind peer review—essential for scholarly integrity—authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) must anonymize documents. Check the text and file properties:
- 2003 and earlier/Mac versions: File > Save As > Tools (or Options) > Security > Remove personal information from file properties on save > Save.
- Mac Word 2008+: File > Properties > Summary tab > Clear all fields > Save.
- 2007 (Windows): Office button > Prepare > Properties > Delete all fields > Save.
- 2010+ (Windows): File > Prepare for Sharing > Check for Issues > Inspect Document > Select only "Document Properties and Personal Information" > Run Inspector > Remove All.
Any violations compromise review integrity; report to the Editor-in-Chief. This process aligns with guidelines from major publishers such as Taylor & Francis and Springer.