The journal "Heritage of Southwest Asia" is committed to maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing through rigorous and responsible peer review processes. Peer review serves as the foundation for assessing the validity, quality, originality, and scientific significance of submitted manuscripts, ensuring that published research contributes to the advancement of knowledge while adhering to ethical standards. This journal supports diverse peer review models tailored to the needs of related disciplines (such as cultural heritage sciences, art, and architecture), emphasizing confidentiality, timeliness, and constructive feedback. All full-length research articles published in this journal undergo peer review following the initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief, anonymous review by independent expert reviewers, and any necessary revisions by the authors. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for reviewers and editors, with the final responsibility for acceptance or rejection resting with the Editor-in-Chief.
The journal employs a variety of models to balance transparency, anonymity, and accountability. The default model for this journal is double-anonymized, unless authors request a different model.
- Double-Anonymized (or Triple-Anonymized) Peer Review: The identities of authors, reviewers, and (in the triple-anonymized model) editors are concealed from each other. This approach is prevalent in social sciences, humanities, and certain natural sciences. Advantages: Reduces bias for a fairer evaluation; protects participants from retaliation. Disadvantages: Anonymity may not be foolproof (e.g., through writing style or references); it may limit contextual understanding. Authors must prepare the manuscript anonymously.
The process typically proceeds in 10 main steps, though variations may occur based on the journal's needs:
The goal is timely completion, and reviewers are expected to respond promptly. This journal aims to complete the process in 21 days, though reasonable delays may occur based on reviewer requests, as finding available reviewers can be challenging. Reviews are conducted by members of the editorial board, editorial council, and a team of expert reviewers (including prominent researchers from Southwest Asia and invited independent international experts in relevant fields). The Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers based on expertise, and all interactions are managed through the digital platform. Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts to generative AI tools.
Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal interests) prior to accepting the invitation and withdraw if applicable. Authors and co-authors must also declare any conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial, actual or perceived).
Reviewers are responsible for confirming the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope, evaluating scientific and technical aspects (methodology, data accuracy, language standards), highlighting the innovative value, originality, and impact of the research, and reporting any ethical concerns (e.g., similarity to prior works, intellectual property issues).
Upon completion, the reviewer recommends one of the following options:
- Accept without changes: "Publication in the current form is suitable."
- Accept with revisions: "Publication after implementing suggested changes."
- Reject: "Publication is not suitable." If two negative reports are received, a justified rejection, approved by the Editor-in-Chief, is communicated.
If revisions are suggested, the report is returned to the authors along with the manuscript. Authors are encouraged to implement the revisions or object with documented reasons, and to submit the revised version within a maximum of three weeks (using a table to respond to comments and explain disagreements without excessive defense). The revised version is sent for re-review; if positive, it proceeds to the editorial board meeting; otherwise, to another reviewer
Authors wishing to withdraw must notify in writing via the system. Failure to respond within three weeks leads to removal and notification. Disputes are resolved by the Editor-in-Chief. Final rejections result from consultation among editors and are communicated via email. Previously rejected manuscripts are not accepted. Upon approval, the publication timeline is notified. In case of rejection, authors may use transfer services to another journal. Appeals against editorial decisions are possible with strong evidence or new data and are handled per COPE guidelines.
This journal mandates absolute confidentiality in peer review, in compliance with data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR). Reviewers and authors must not disclose manuscript details, comments, or communications during or after the process—except for what the journal publishes. This applies to anonymized models and prohibits uploading manuscripts (or parts) to generative AI tools like ChatGPT, as it risks breaching confidentiality, privacy, and copyright. If AI is used in review reports, it must be transparently declared.
Authors must also uphold confidentiality; open-review journals state this in guidelines. Reviewers commit to COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers upon invitation. In ethical research, the manuscript, authors, reviewers, and others are treated as confidential, though information may be shared with ethics committees or authors' institutions. Breaches undermine trust, and the journal, as a COPE member, emphasizes integrity. If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague, they must obtain permission from the editorial office before sharing the manuscript and declare details.
Reviewers should provide timely, objective, and constructive feedback. Key principles:
- Ethical Considerations: Declare conflicts of interest immediately. Maintain confidentiality; do not go beyond reporting suspicions of plagiarism (originality)—editors use software. Treat the manuscript as confidential; do not share or use for personal gain. Misconduct such as review manipulation is taken seriously.
- Timeliness: Accept/decline invitations promptly; complete reviews within the timeframe.
- Objectivity and Constructiveness: Be polite, evidence-based, and balanced—highlight strengths. Focus on the science, not style unless it impairs clarity. Benefits of reviewing include staying current with research, improving your own writing, strengthening your CV, and contributing to the community.
Step-by-Step Guide
Evaluation Criteria: Originality, relevance, clarity, methodological rigor, data validity, logical argumentation, ethical compliance. Reviewers should be expert, impartial, and capable of comprehensive reports.
For Authors: Adhere to journal guidelines and aims; anonymize for double-anonymized model; share data publicly or provide for reviewers; respond to all comments and explain disagreements with convincing arguments; formally withdraw if not revising.
Editors decide based on reports, journal aims, field knowledge, and space constraints. Outcomes:
- Accept: Without changes, minor revisions, or major revisions (conditional). Rare and proceeds directly to production.
- Reject: Unsuitable; alternatives may be suggested via transfer desk. After review if revisions are inadequate or standards unmet.
- Desk Reject: Immediately after EIC assessment if outside scope, poor format, or no new contribution.
- Revise and Resubmit: Common; minor or major changes; multiple rounds may be needed.
- Conditional Accept (IPA): For registered reports, if stage one passes.
Recommendations guide revisions; authors respond point-by-point. A positive report does not guarantee acceptance—the final decision lies with the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief, as the final arbiter of disputes, acts impartially and adheres to the editors' code of conduct.
Each issue is approved after comprehensive review of reviewer reports. Accepted authors are notified of the publication date.
Manuscripts are non-publishable if they fail technical screening or exhibit flaws threatening integrity. Common reasons:
If rejected, use feedback for revision; submit elsewhere (or appeal if procedural error); avoid unchanged resubmissions.
The journal does not publish
- Manuscripts with duplicate or previously published content (except abstracts or preprints under specific conditions);
- Manuscripts that do not comply with structural and formatting requirements;
- Manuscripts from authors who refuse technical and scientific editing;
- Manuscripts that ignore constructive reviewer suggestions or reject them without valid reasoning;
- Series of manuscripts covering only incomplete parts of a research project.
Original review reports are permanently preserved confidentially in the journal's system (at least five years). Report contents are not publicly disclosed and are provided only in exceptional cases (e.g., requests from regulatory bodies) while maintaining confidentiality. Reviewers can obtain certificates from the system if needed.