For manuscripts submitted for reviewing prior to publication in the PALEO Prehistoric Archeology journal or in its special issues.

Procedure for choosing peer reviewers

Upon receiving a submission, the PALEO publishing secretary systematically sends the corresponding title and abstract by email to the entire editorial board of the journal so that each member can propose one or more names of reviewers depending on the subject of the paper.

The majority name is retained and a second reviewer is selected according to his/her area of expertise, either within the editorial board or in the review panel of PALEO, this collegially, generally by email in order not to slow down the process of composing the issues. This process is also presented as a report and, when appropriate, discussed in the editorial board meeting.

If no majority name emerges from this consultation, the publication director takes a decision based on the arguments presented by the members of the editorial board.

More generally, the principles for choosing peer reviewers are respecting the following criteria:

One reviewer in the editorial board or in the reading committee and one external reviewer;

The reviewer must not have any potential conflicts of interest with the author, must not be a member of the same laboratory, and must not publish regularly with one or more authors of the paper.

As a reminder, the reviewer has 6 weeks to make this assessment. 15 days before the end of the evaluation report submission deadline, an email is sent systematically to the reviewers in order to respect timing.

In the case of supplements concerning symposium publications, the person in charge of the symposium, the publication director, can propose reviewers within the context of his/her management but one or more additional reviewers will be systematically chosen by the PALEO journal in its editorial board or reading committee.

The author can indicate reviewers he/she does not wish to be solicited as reviewers.

Conveying the reviewer(s)’s opinions to the author(s)

Peer reviewers all receive an evaluation questionnaire including assessment criteria for the text, illustrations and bibliography.

Reviewers can also choose to remain anonymous. If they do, the evaluation questionnaire completed by the reviewer does not include a name or signature at the end of the document and can be sent to the author as such.

It is also possible to replace the transmission of this evaluation questionnaire by a text summarizing the produced opinion(s). This text is then proposed by the publishing secretary and the publication director, the summary is validated and signed by the editorial board before being conveyed to the author(s).

Second reviewing after inserting the requested modifications

Once the modifications and / or corrections suggested by the reviewers have been included by the author(s), the new version of the article is sent back to the said reviewers for final validation before being passed on to the graphic designers. If there is a dispute, the arbitration is implemented by the publication director.