Review Model | Appealing an Editorial Decision | Peer Review Terminology

Review Model

Ancient Mesoamerica operates a double-anonymous peer review policy. Submissions should be anonymized and stripped of identifying information, and should be accompanied by a title page providing the following information:

• Corresponding author, email & affiliations
• Co-Authors, emails & affiliations
• Acknowledgements
• Competing interests declaration

Each contribution will be reviewed by at least three, and some times as many as five, outside readers. In the event of opposing reviews, additional reviewers will be sought.

Reviewers make recommendations to the Editors concerning revision of the manuscript, acceptance or rejection. Reviewers may choose to remain anonymous; in any case, all reviewers’ comments will be passed on to the authors.

Invited reviewers considering working with a junior colleague for training purposes should refer to Cambridge's policy on co-reviewing.

Appealing an Editorial Decision

To appeal an editorial decision, contact ancientmeso@gmail.com and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by an editor who did not review the manuscript. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with this editor. In the case of a dispute, the Editor-in-Chief’s decision on appeals is final. New submissions take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time for the journal to reach a conclusion about your appeal. If you have submitted an appeal and are awaiting an outcome, you should not submit your manuscript for publication elsewhere until you have notified this journal that you wish to withdraw your manuscript from consideration.

Peer Review Terminology

Ancient Mesoamerica and Cambridge University Press are participating in a pilot of STM's Working Group on Peer Review Terminology. 

STM, the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, has recognised a need to identify and standardise definitions and terminology in peer review practices in order to help align nomenclature as more publishers use open peer review models. A peer review terminology that is used across publishers will help make the peer review process for articles and journals more transparent, and will enable the community to better assess and compare peer review practices between different journals.

Terminology for Ancient Mesoamerica:

• Identity transparency (during peer review process itself): Double anonymized
• Reviewer interacts with: Editor
  

We welcome your feedback on the Peer Review Terminology Pilot - please consider taking the time to fill this short survey.