Peer Review Policy

Tempus Pontem: Azerbaijan Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology (TP: AJAA) upholds the highest standards of academic publishing by adhering to a rigorous peer review process, which ensures scholarly quality, objectivity, and integrity in all accepted contributions. This process is fundamental to the journal’s commitment to fostering original research, critical discussion, and interdisciplinary dialogue within the fields of archaeology and anthropology.

1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editorial Board to determine its relevance to the scope of the journal, its academic quality, and its compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum editorial standards or fall outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at this stage without being sent for peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection and Anonymity
If deemed suitable for review, the manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are recognised experts in the relevant subject area. The journal follows a review process, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the entire evaluation process. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject matter expertise
  • Research background and publication record
  • Absence of any conflict of interest
  • Ability to provide a fair, constructive, and timely review

3. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following academic and ethical criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the field of archaeology and/or anthropology
  • Relevance to the scope and aims of the journal
  • Theoretical grounding and conceptual clarity
  • Methodological soundness, accuracy, and reproducibility
  • Use and interpretation of data or sources, including material culture, fieldwork findings, or ethnographic evidence
  • Clarity of argumentation, structure, and academic style
  • Engagement with current literature and critical debates
  • Proper citation practices and adherence to ethical guidelines
  • Language quality, coherence, and academic tone

4. Editorial Decision Process
Based on reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations, the editorial team will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept the manuscript for publication
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject the manuscript

Authors are informed of the decision, along with anonymous reviewer comments, typically within 6–8 weeks from submission. In the case of a "revise and resubmit" decision, authors must address all reviewer concerns and submit a revised version that includes a detailed response to the reviewer feedback. The same reviewers may re-evaluate the revised manuscript.

5. Ethical Considerations
The journal expects reviewers to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all submissions
  • Declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review
  • Provide objective, evidence-based assessments
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe

Reviewers who fail to meet these standards may be removed from the reviewer database.

6. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who wish to appeal editorial decisions may contact the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed justification. Appeals will be considered carefully, and, if necessary, an additional review may be conducted by a third-party expert.

This policy reflects TP: AJAA’s dedication to academic rigour and fair evaluation. All stages of the peer review process are managed through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, which supports transparency, accountability, and ease of communication.