About the Journal

Peer Review Policy

• Initial submission
• Peer review
• Decision after peer review
• Revisions
• Final submission and acceptance

Initial submission

Once submitted, the manuscript will be evaluated by Editor-in-Chief, who will read and decide whether it is appropriate for peer review. The evaluation will consider alignment with the journal's mission, the quality and novelty of the work, its potential interest to the Studia Archaeologica readers, and the clarity of presentation.  Authors will be notified of the initial decision within 10 days.

Peer review

Once the manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to a handling Editor, it will undergo peer review, typically involving 2-3 reviewers. Reviewers will be either members of editorial board or independent experts in the relevant field.  Studia Archaeologica employs a double-blind peer-review system, in which both the reviewer and author identities are kept confidential throughout the review process. The authors may suggest potential reviewers, though these suggestions are not always followed. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate manuscripts based on (as described on Reviewer’s Responsibility information below):

• Suitability of content and novelty,
• Coverage of relevant literature,
• Adequacy of methodology, analysis, and interpretation,
• Scientific importance,
• Quality of language and presentation.

The review process generally takes 5-7 weeks. 

Decision after peer review

Based on reviewer’s evaluations and comments, the handling editor in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Request a minor revision (authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns)
• Request a major revision (authors revise their manuscript to address substantial concerns or provide additional data/analysis)
• Reject

The decision, along with the reviewer’s comments, will be sent to the authors within 7 days.

Revisions

For manuscripts requiring revision, the decision letter will outline the requested changes and revisions, and specify the deadline for submission of a revised manuscript. Authors must submit the revised manuscript along with a Point-by-point response to reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed. Once revised manuscript resubmitted, the manuscript will normally be sent back to the original reviewers for evaluations. If necessary, additional rounds of revision will be requested.

Final submission and acceptance

After completion of the peer review process and resolution of all editorial issues, the manuscript will be formally accepted for publication. An acceptance letter will be sent to authors. At this point, the authors will be asked for minor adjustments, such as changes to title or corrections of small errors. All final corrections will be reviewed and approved by the publishing team. The average time from submission to the final decision is approximately 9-10 weeks.

Editorial Policy

Exemption of responsibility

• Studia Archaeologica assumes no responsibility for all contents of the published articles.

Plagiarism

• Studia Archaeologica is strictly AGAINST Plagiarism, an unethical act of copying someone else’s ideas, results, processes, or texts.
• Therefore, all the submitted manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using anti-plagiarism professional software before starting the initial review.
• If the plagiarism is detected, up to 30% plagiarism, the manuscript will be sent to the authors for revision.
• If more than >30% plagiarism is detected, the manuscript will be rejected without review. The authors will be asked to revise and resubmit the revised manuscript.

Duplication

• As the Studia Archaeologica publishes original research, it does NOT accept any Duplicate publications that reuse substantial parts of their previously published work.
• All the submitted manuscripts will be checked carefully for duplication, at the same time of plagiarism checking, before starting the initial review.
• If the duplication is detected, the manuscript will be sent to the authors either for revision or will be rejected.

Ethics for research involving animal or biological material

• The journal has adopted publication ethical policies for research involving animals and their biological materials.
• When reporting experiments with animals or biological samples, the authors are required to provide statements identifying the ethics committee that approved the research.
• The authors should indicate whether the research procedures followed the ethical standards of the responsible committee.

  Biosecurity and dual-use

• The journal considers potential dual-use concerns of the study.
• The authors are asked to provide a description of the risks of misuse of their study for both benevolent and malevolent applications referring to the approved guidelines.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Authorship

Generative AI tools, Large Language Models (LLMs), or automated chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) do not meet authorship criteria. Authorship carries legal accountability, copyright consent, and responsibility for data integrity—duties that AI cannot assume.

Author Responsibilities & Disclosure

• Permitted Uses: AI may be used for language editing, refining prose, coding assistance, or literature categorization.

• Mandatory Disclosure: Authors must include an "AI & Generative Tools Usage Statement" in the Methods or Acknowledgments section detailing:

  1. The specific tool and version used.

  2. The exact nature of the assistance (e.g., code debugging, copyediting).

  3. A declaration that authors independently verified all outputs, citations, and data.

• Data & Image Restrictions: Generative AI must not be used to create synthetic research data, fabricate visual evidence, or manipulate figures/images.

Peer Reviewer Confidentiality

Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, figures, or supplementary data into external AI tools or LLMs. Doing so violates author confidentiality and intellectual property rights.

• For further guidance, refer to the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

Editor-in-Chief

• Deciding or rejecting manuscripts not to forward them to the peer review process;
• Assigning manuscripts/papers to Editors;
• Ensuring a fair and transparent peer review procedure and making a final decision on whether a submitted manuscript will be published;
• Taking direct responsibility for dealing with any issues arising subsequent to publication, and handling complaints in line with the editorial decisions;
• Strategic planning including policy development and innovation for the journal;
• Maintaining the journal’s scientific quality, integrity, and reputation while guiding its strategic direction and operational efficiency.

Editors

• Handling manuscripts/papers assigned by the Editor-in-Chief;
• Selecting and inviting the qualified reviewers, managing the peer-review process, and ensuring that reviewers are completed in a timely and fair manner;
• Deciding for manuscript acceptance or rejection based on the reviewer’s reports and their assessment and providing a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief;
• May also recommend the up-front rejection of unsuitable or scarcely relevant papers;
• Enforcing ethical guidelines to prevent issues like plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflict of interest;
• Getting feedback from the authors, reviewers, and readers to continually improve the journal’s operations and standards;
• Maintaining quality and credibility of publication.

Editorial board members

• Serving as a peer reviewer;
• Providing scientific expertise for the journal;
• Improving the journal’s visibility and impact within the academic community e.g helping the journal to attract high-quality manuscripts;
• Providing feedback and suggesting improvements for the journal;
• Submitting manuscripts as encouraged.

Managing (technical) editors

• Operating activities related to editing the accepted papers;
• Operating activities in the journal system and columns;
• Processing submissions and the peer review procedure. 

Publication Ethics and malpractice statement

Publishing ethics of the MGS is based on those by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethnics.org

It is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society-owned. This includes all parties treating each other with respect and dignity and without discrimination, harassment, bullying or retaliation.

Editor Responsibilities

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

• The editor may confer with other managing editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
• The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.
• The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
• The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the journal.
• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
• The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
• The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
• Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• If the reviewer considers that there is any conflict of interest that may make compromise their review, they are required to make this known to the editorial office, and may be excused from performing the review. The reviewer may not be aware of this until they have accepted the invitation to review.
• Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
• Reviewers are required to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and "refrain from using information or ideas obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• Reviewers are asked to return their reviews by the requested date, and to inform the editorial office if there is likely to be a delay.

Authorship & Contributorship (CRediT)

Authorship Criteria

All listed authors must meet the four ICMJE criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to conception, design, acquisition, or analysis of data.

2. Drafting or revising the intellectual content critically.

3. Final approval of the version to be published.

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

CRediT Taxonomy

To ensure transparent attribution, authors must define individual contributions using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy-https://credit.niso.org/) framework (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft).

Author Responsibilities

• Authors must confirm that the manuscript is entirely their own work. If they have used the work or words of others, they should cite or quote them properly.
• Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere and is not under consideration elsewhere.
• Each author quoted in the text must significantly contribute to the conception, design, implementation, and interpretation of the study. All authors must agree to the submission and ensure their inclusion as cosignatories.

For the detailed Author’s ethical responsibilities, please see the Author’s Guidelines  https://www.mongoliajol.info/index.php/SA/about/submissions