All the works published are subject to a double-blind peer review process in order to guarantee their quality. A peer review, made by acclaimed experts, guarantees the quality, originality and scientific contribution of the contents of this journal. It also provides the authors with an objective and constructive assessment of their manuscripts.

The peer review of the manuscripts submitted to this journal follows the double-blind system in order to guarantee the anonymity of both the reviewer and the author.

To act as a reviewer from the journal platform, you should follow the steps indicated.

The criteria are as follows:

• Scientific interest and/or relevance of the subject matter (the article improves the knowledge of the subject)

• Treatment of the subject-matter

• Bibliography (up-to-date, correct, complete, relevant, it follows the APA guidelines)

• Adequate length

• Adequate title (clear, concise, informative and representative of the article content)

• Abstract (clear, includes the fundamental points of the article)

• Key words (relevant to the article content)

• Structure of the original (organisation and internal consistency)

• Clear and well-defined subject and objectives.

• Quality of writing - language (clear, concise, logical sequence, grammatical accuracy)

• Graphs, photos, tables, etc. must be relevant and sufficient.

• Conclusions (well-founded, consistent with the development of the article)

The final recommendation of the report will be:

• Publishable

• Publishable with minor modifications.

• Publicable with sustantial modifications (requires a second revistion).

• Not Publishable.

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, make sure that you have sufficient time to do so, that the subject-matter is within your area of knowledge and that there is no conflict of interest.

Give a reply to indicate your acceptance or refusal of the invitation to review, given that a failure to do so will delay the whole process.

Acceptance represents a commitment to confidentiality. You must not disclose or share the contents of the article, either during or after issuing your report. Should you require a second opinion, you must get the express approval of the editorial board.

To help the authors to improve their work, try to ensure that your comments are constructive, objective and reasoned, clearly indicating the points to improve. Do not forget to be polite.

To help the editorial board reach a decision on the article, the review report must clearly state whether it is of sufficient quality and interest, as well as those aspects that need to be changed. If the article is not acceptable for publication, then the reviewer must indicate this and provide clear justification. This will give the board solid grounds to reject the manuscript. The section on comments for the editor is confidential.

Should there be any suspicion of plagiarism, then the editorial board must be notified, providing detailed quotes of the plagiarized work.

The publishers and editorial board thank you for your collaboration in a task that is vital to maintain the quality of the journal.

Should you require a certificate for your review work, then this should be requested in writing at trabajosarqueologia@navarra.es