Peer Review Policy


The editors of Strata recognise the value of the peer review process as a way of providing objective assessment of submitted work; we aim to achieve rigorous quality control to ensure sound scholarship.

Journal scope

Strata is an annual peer-reviewed academic journal that seeks to bring the latest studies of the archaeology of Israel-Palestine and its surrounding regions to a wider international audience. The Editors welcome submissions announcing new discoveries, presenting the results of current excavations, and exploring various aspects of material culture remains, as well as historical studies informed by archaeological evidence. Articles dealing with methodological issues or providing new perspectives on existing datasets are also welcome. We also aim to publish reviews of published works and exhibitions that fall within this remit, and reports from current AIAS grant recipients.

The peer review process

On submission to Strata, manuscripts will be evaluated by the editors regarding their suitability for the journal. A manuscript is likely to be rejected if it falls outside the scope of the journal, is not an original piece of work, or the scholarship is insufficiently sound.

All manuscripts submitted to Strata will be subject to full peer review. On submission, the editors identify two appropriate peer reviewers, who may be members of the editorial board or ad hoc reviewers chosen for their relevant expertise. Reviewers are asked to complete a peer review form, which assesses different aspects of the manuscript for its suitability and recommends an outcome. Referees are not expected to comment or correct language and typographical errors in the paper; their role is to evaluate its suitability for inclusion in the journal. They are expected to provide clear advice for authors on how to improve the manuscript, if any changes have been requested.

This is a double-blind review process, in which reviewers are not told the identity of the authors, nor of their fellow reviewers.

Once both referee reports have been received, the editors will make a decision on how to proceed. In rare cases, where the reports disagree on the outcome, a third opinion may be sought. However, the final decision on whether a manuscript should be accepted rests with the editors.

If revisions are requested, reviewer reports may be amended by the editors to ensure confidentiality and that appropriate language has been used, before sending them on to the authors. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial referees for consideration, depending on the nature of the changes requested, and if the referees have agreed to do a further review of the work under consideration.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are matched to papers according to their expertise. In some cases, choices will be complementary, to cover different aspects of the manuscript’s contents (for example, a scientific reviewer may be paired with someone who holds particular historical or archaeological expertise).


Submissions will be read by the editors, and two or more peer reviewers, as deemed necessary to assess the suitability of the manuscript for inclusion in the journal. The content of a submission may also be discussed with other members of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society editorial board or Committee, at the discretion of the editors, and for the purposes of consultation only. The content of submissions will be considered confidential, until a submission is accepted for publication.

Identifying and reporting misconduct

In cases of suspected misconduct, including, but not limited to issues relating to authorship or ownership of intellectual property, peer review manipulation, plagiarism and conflicts of interest, the editors will follow the procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (see for details).