Steps to Peer-Review UEE Submissions

Steps to Peer-Review UEE Submissions

Step 1: First read-through

  • Is it clear what the authors want to communicate and the direction of the manuscript?
  • Are you concerned about the language (UEE is aimed towards an intelligent, but broad readership, including non-Egyptologists)? Are revisions needed to make it possible to review?

Step 2: Detailed review

Title - Does it express clearly what the manuscript is about? - Does it contain any unnecessary description?

Abstract - Is it a short and clear summary of the article? - Does it include enough information to stand alone? - Does it contain unnecessary information?

Article text - Does it clearly summarize the current state of the topic? - Does it address any limitations of current knowledge in this field? - Does the article present multiple opinions (if relevant)

Bibliographic Note - Does the article have a Bibliographic Notes section that discusses the most important literature on the subject?

Tables and figures - Are the images relevant to the text? - Are important images missing? - Is the presentation of tables and figures consistent with the description in text? - Do the figure legends and table headings clearly explain what is shown? - Do the Image Credits clarify that the images are in the public domain, have a creative commons license or that the image rights have been cleared?

References - Are any key references missing? - Do the authors cite the initial discoveries where suitable? - Do the cited studies represent current knowledge?

Step 3: Provide detailed comments

  • These should be suitable for sending to the author. Use these comments to make constructive suggestions, seek clarification on any unclear points, and ask for further elaboration. Avoid generalized or vague statements as well as any negative comments which are not relevant or constructive (See examples of acceptable comments below).
  • It is not the reviewer’s job to edit the paper for English (all articles will be corrected by a copy editor), but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
  • A reviewer may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided their evidence supports it.

Step 4: Make a recommendation

Once you have read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor about publication. The specific decision types used are:

  • Accept
    • The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Minor revision
    • The paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
  • Major revision
    • The paper needs substantial changes such as, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text. The text will be reviewed again after re-submission.
  • Reject
    • The paper is not suitable for publication, or the revisions are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.