Editorial Process
Contributions, whether research articles, short communications, book reviews, academic interviews or other formats defined in the editorial policy, are received on a continuous basis through the official electronic platform of Anatolḗ. Studies on the Ancient Near East, in accordance with the journal’s current editorial guidelines and the editorial calendar approved annually by the Editorial Board.
The journal does not establish temporal restrictions on the publication of works by the same author. All manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on the basis of their scientific quality, originality and academic relevance, without consideration of the authors’ institutional affiliation, academic trajectory or personal circumstances, in accordance with the principle of academic equality set out in the journal’s regulations.
The journal does not set or publish rejection rates as a normative criterion of the editorial process. Editorial decisions are based solely on the results of the academic evaluation process and the journal’s editorial policies, ensuring transparency, impartiality and editorial independence.
Book reviews, interviews and dossier introductory texts are evaluated directly by the Editorial Board, taking into account their academic relevance, thematic coherence and alignment with the objectives of the journal.
Research articles and contributions submitted as part of dossiers or monographic sections undergo the following editorial process:
1. Preliminary evaluation
This stage consists of an initial editorial review conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, with the support of the Managing Editor, aimed at verifying the thematic relevance of the manuscript, compliance with basic editorial standards, and adherence to principles of originality and academic ethics. At this stage, the manuscript may be returned for formal adjustments, rejected with justification, or sent for external peer review. All decisions taken at this stage are communicated to the corresponding author.
2. External peer review
Manuscripts that pass the preliminary evaluation are submitted to a double-blind peer review process, through the assignment of at least two external reviewers who are specialists in the subject matter. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and must not have academic, institutional or personal conflicts of interest with them.
Evaluation reports consider, among other aspects, the originality of the work, its contribution to the disciplinary field, methodological soundness, the relevance and currency of sources and bibliography, as well as the clarity of argumentation and the quality of academic writing.
Reviewers’ recommendations may result in rejection, acceptance subject to revisions, or acceptance. In cases of substantive disagreement between reports, the Editor-in-Chief may request a third external review. If disagreement persists, the Editor-in-Chief shall issue a reasoned decision based on the available evidence.
All decisions are communicated in writing to the authors. When revisions are requested, the corresponding author receives a summary of editorial and reviewers’ comments, together with the deadlines for submitting the revised version. The peer review process follows an indicative timeframe, which may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript and reviewer availability.
3. Editorial revision and production
Once a manuscript has been accepted, with or without revisions, it enters the editorial revision stage, during which the editorial team verifies the proper incorporation of the requested changes. The manuscript may be returned to the author for additional editorial adjustments when necessary.
A manuscript is considered definitively accepted once the editorial team approves the final version submitted by the author within the established deadlines. Upon request, the journal may issue a formal letter of acceptance in accordance with its internal procedures.
After this stage, the manuscript enters the production phase, which includes copy-editing, layout and final preparation in accordance with the journal’s graphic standards. The typeset version is sent to the authors for final review prior to publication.
Dossiers
The journal may publish dossiers or monographic sections, which may originate either through direct invitation by the Editorial Board or through public calls disseminated via the journal’s official channels.
Dossier proposals must include a title, an introductory text, and a set of article proposals by diverse authors, coherent with the proposed theme. The academic and editorial relevance of the proposals is assessed by the Editorial Board, with consultative support from the Scientific Advisory Council when appropriate.
Once a dossier has been approved, all articles included in it must undergo the external double-blind peer review process. The dossier introductory text is evaluated directly by the Editorial Board.
For a dossier to be published, at least five articles must have been accepted following external peer review, thus ensuring the thematic coherence and academic quality of the set. If this requirement is not met, accepted articles may be published independently.
