Archaeologia Polona
PEER REVIEW FORM
Both the author of the reviewed paper and the reviewer will remain anonymous
and their names will be known only to the Editor
TITLE OF PAPER:
NAME OF REVIEWER:
DATE:
I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REVIEWED PAPER:
1. Degree of novelty
The paper is innovative.
The paper has some elements of novelty.
The paper is not innovative.
2. Contribution to existing knowledge
The paper is an important contribution to the development of archaeology.
The paper contains some elements contributing to the development of archaeology.
The paper does not contribute to the development of archaeology.
3. Structure and readability of the text
The text is well structured, clearly written and understandable.
Some parts of the text require clarification.
The text is difficult to understand and requires rewriting.
4. Definition of the research problem
The research problem is well defined and clearly presented.
The research problem requires better definition and description.
The subject of the paper is not clear.
5. Terminology
The terminology is precise, well-defined and adequate.
Some terms used require definition or are inadequately used.
The terminology is unclear and/or wrongly used.
6. Soundness of methodology
The methodology used is correct and properly described,
The methodology used is not properly described.
The methodology used is inadequate.
7. Source data
Source data is complete and/or statistically relevant.
Some important sites and/or finds have not been taken into account.
Source data is incomplete and/or statistically irrelevant.
8. The interpretation of the evidence
The interpretation is logical, convincing and well-founded in methodology and theory.
Some of the conclusions require better argumentation.
The basis for interpretation is unclear and the conclusions are not convincing.
9. Adequacy of literature review
The review of literature is complete and adequate.
Some important publications have not been taken into account.
The review of literature does not reflect the present state of the art.
10. Quality of illustrations
Quality and readability of illustrations is high.
Some illustrations require amendments.
Quality of illustrations is low.
11. Relations between text and illustrations
Illustrations are important part of the paper and their connection to the text is clear.
Some of the illustrations are not relevant to the problem presented in the paper.
Illustrations are not connected to the text and could be omitted.
12. Abstract
The abstract is a good characterization the contents of the paper well.
The abstract does not fully represent the contents of the paper.
The abstract requires rewriting.
II. ADVICE TO THE EDITOR:
ACCEPT: The manuscript warrants publication. It is a solid contribution to archaeology. It is
well conceived and executed.
ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS: The manuscript should be accepted after the minor
revisions, noted in the comments, are made. It will then be a sound contribution to archaeology. (The
reviewer's comments must be sufficient for the author to respond to the reviewer's concerns.)
REVISE AND RESUBMIT: The manuscript does not warrant publication in its current form,
but it will warrant publication with suggested revisions. (The reviewer's comments must be sufficient
for the author to respond to the reviewer's concerns.)
REJECT: The manuscript does not warrant publication.
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: