The ethos of Southern African Field Archaeology is that of a development journal that supports all authors to publish their work, providing it fits the ambit of the journal, is accurate, un-plagiarised and contributes to methods development, experimentation, data analysis and the interpretation of the archaeological and palaeo-science records, as well as to collections and heritage management on the sub-continent.

• As a reviewer you will be asked to assess submissions according to a manuscript evaluation form: please ensure that all comments and recommendations are provided within this form and please refrain from uploading annotated manuscripts and/or supplementary review files.
• Make a recommendation to the editor to: a) accept as-is, b) accept* with minor revision, c) accept* with moderate revision, d) accept* with major revision*, d) reject in current form (*pending the implementation of the revisions by the authors to the discretion of the handling Specialist Editor).
• The decision to accept or reject a submission lies with the Specialist Editors and/or the Editorial Team, who will use the recommendations of the reviewers as guideline.
• You are required to specifically assess the accuracy of data/fact/method/interpretation/citation.
• Your main task is to provide suggestions for the improvement of a manuscript.
• Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the author/s to improve their manuscript.
• Be specific in your critique and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help Specialist Editors in their evaluation.
• Reviewers are not allowed to ‘rewrite’ the manuscript according to their opinion or ideology, instead if you feel strongly about a topic, we invite you to submit a critique for peer-review to stimulate transparent discussion within a wider audience.
• Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations. 
• Recommendations for a-c above should be backed up with a concise (a sentence or two) motivation.
• When major revision or rejection is recommended, a thorough reasoning must be provided.

 

Suspicion of ethics violations: If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the Managing Editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.