All contributions received by Comechingonia are reviewed by the Editorial Committee, which performs a formal review of the work ensuring that it meets the editorial standards and originality criteria. The Editors reserve the right to reject contributions submitted if they do not meet minimum quality requirements, if they exceed the maximum length established for each category or if they are not unpublished research results. The decision of the Editors will be final and will not give the right to reply.

Subsequently, manuscripts are submitted for review by external peers proposed ad hoc by the Editors of the journal and the Editorial Committee.

The review is based on the evaluation of several formal criteria of presentation of the manuscripts as well as their academic content. As a result, the peer reviewers must suggest to the Editorial Board their opinion about whether the manuscript should be published (as submitted, revised or heavily modified) or rejected.

Based on this, the Editorial Committee will only consider for acceptance those manuscripts that obtain a recommendation for publication by both reviewers. In case there are differences in criteria between the peers, a new round of review will be carried out incorporating new reviewers that will allow the editorial and academic quality of the manuscript to be determined.

The revised version of the manuscript should be accompanied by a note addressed to the editors of the Journal in which the changes made are explained and those suggestions that were not considered by the authors are adequately justified.

The review process guarantees the anonymity of the reviewers and authors (if requested). In the latter case (authors) should be requested before sending the manuscript.

For refereeing, external reviewers consider the following aspects:

(a) Content
Does the work constitute an original contribution and/or an advance in the knowledge of the subject matter?
Does the work have sufficient and relevant evidence and/or data?
Is an adequate methodology used?
Is the interpretation of the archaeological evidence correct?
Are the conclusions adequate and related to the information presented?
Observations.

(b) General structure of the work.
Indicate whether, in your opinion, the paper is clear in its wording. If any paragraph or part is unclear, indicate it in the margin.
Are the different sections in logical order?
Are the tables and figures presented adequate?
Do you consider it essential to publish all of them?
Are any of them missing?
Are the bibliographical references presented relevant to the work?
Should any be omitted or included?
Are all the authors cited in the text included in the bibliographical references?

c) General comments

 

Possible opinions are: Accepted without modifications, accepted with minor modifications, accepted with substantial modifications, or rejected.