Peer Review Policy

PANCHAL: International Journal of Archaeology & Cultural Heritage follows a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer-review process designed to ensure academic quality, originality, research integrity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and fair scholarly assessment.

Under the double-blind review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the peer-review process. This approach helps minimize potential bias and supports an independent and objective evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

Minimum Reviewers per Manuscript: Two Independent Experts

Publication Frequency: Triannual

Peer Review Process Framework

Every manuscript is initially examined by the editorial office to determine whether it:

• Falls within the journal’s aims and scope
• Demonstrates sufficient originality and academic relevance
• Meets basic scholarly and formatting requirements
• Presents a clear contribution to archaeology, cultural heritage, conservation, history, or related interdisciplinary fields
• Complies with research integrity and publication ethics requirements
• Is suitable for external peer review

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary editorial assessment are normally forwarded to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject knowledge, academic experience, research expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewer Evaluation Standards

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts critically, objectively, fairly, and constructively.

The assessment may consider the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Relevance to archaeology, cultural heritage, conservation, or related disciplines
• Clarity of the research objectives or research problem
• Appropriateness and transparency of the research methodology
• Adequacy of archaeological, historical, scientific, field-based, or documentary evidence
• Accuracy and relevance of references and cited sources
• Quality of interpretation, argumentation, and discussion
• Consistency between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions
• Contribution to existing archaeological or heritage knowledge
• Adequacy of theoretical or conceptual frameworks
• Appropriate treatment of archaeological sites, artefacts, human remains, heritage materials, or communities, where applicable
• Ethical treatment of research participants, cultural materials, heritage resources, and sensitive information
• Scholarly quality, organization, and clarity of the manuscript
• Appropriate acknowledgment of limitations
• Overall contribution to the relevant body of knowledge

Reviewers should provide sufficiently detailed comments to support the editorial decision and, where appropriate, assist authors in improving the academic quality, clarity, accuracy, and presentation of their manuscripts.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, share, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, academic, commercial, competitive, or other unauthorized purposes.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review assignment.

Reviewers must not intentionally delay the review process and should inform the editorial office promptly if they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit and must not allow personal beliefs, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, professional relationships, academic competition, or other unrelated considerations to influence their assessment.

Editorial Decision Outcomes

Following consideration of the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s independent assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication and requires no substantial academic revision, subject to final editorial, formatting, metadata, and production checks.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited modifications that do not substantially alter the central research design, findings, analysis, interpretation, or principal conclusions.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial changes relating to methodology, analysis, theoretical development, interpretation, structure, evidence, presentation, documentation, or other significant scholarly concerns.

Reject

The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication because of substantial academic deficiencies, insufficient scholarly contribution, methodological concerns, ethical issues, lack of originality, scope mismatch, inadequate evidence, or other material limitations.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor, who considers reviewer recommendations alongside the journal’s editorial policies, academic standards, ethical requirements, and scope.

Revision and Re-Evaluation

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response explaining how the reviewers’ and editor’s comments have been addressed.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

• Evaluated directly by the handling editor
• Returned to the original reviewers for further assessment
• Sent to additional reviewers where further specialist evaluation is considered necessary

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

The manuscript must satisfactorily address the substantive academic, methodological, ethical, documentation, interpretation, or presentation concerns identified during editorial and peer review before it can be considered for publication.

Editorial Independence and Research Integrity

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, methodological quality, research integrity, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and contribution to knowledge.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author’s institutional affiliation, geographic location, nationality, gender, personal relationships, professional status, academic seniority, or other considerations unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Where reviewers or editors identify concerns involving possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, fabricated or falsified data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical treatment of archaeological or cultural materials, or other forms of research misconduct, the matter may be referred for further editorial assessment in accordance with recognized publication-ethics principles and applicable Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

Academic Quality Commitment

PANCHAL: International Journal of Archaeology & Cultural Heritage is committed to maintaining a peer-review system that is fair, confidential, constructive, independent, transparent, and academically rigorous.

The journal seeks to publish credible and meaningful scholarship that contributes to the advancement, preservation, interpretation, and responsible study of archaeology and cultural heritage.