Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope | Section Policies | Peer Review Process | Publication Frequency | Open Access Policy | Publication EthicsCopyright Notice | Article Processing Charges | Self Archiving PolicyPrivacy Statement | Plagiarism Check | Copyediting and Proofreading | References Management | Accreditation Certificate

 

Focus and Scope

An objective of AMERTA is to promote the wide dissemination of the results of systematic scholarly inquiries into the broad field of archaeological research. The primary, but not exclusive, audiences are researchers, academicians, graduate students, practitioners, and others interested in archaeological research.

AMERTA accepts original articles in any archaeology related subjects and any research methodology that meet the standards established for publication in the journal. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in archaeology, including, but not limited to:

The primary criterion for publication in AMERTA is the significance of the contribution an article makes to the development of archaeology. The acceptance decision is made based upon an independent review process that provides critically constructive and prompt evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

 

Section Policies

Articles    Checked Open Submissions    Checked Indexed    Checked Peer Reviewed

 

Peer Review Process

Reviewer AMERTA competent in archaeology, ethnography, geology, biology, anthropology, history, culture, etc and also able to work professionally by upholding the ethical code of scientific publication as Reviewer. The peer-review Process of AMERTA manuscripts is as follows:

  1. The reviewer conducts a review (review process) manuscript according to their scientific filed. If the manuscript does not match the field of competence, a reviewer has the right to refuse and transferred to other reviewers who more competent.
  2. The review process uses a double-blind review which is the reviewer does not know the author’s identity and vice versa.
  3. The review process is done by one reviewer. The step is carried out by the E-journal system.
  4. The reviewer reviews the manuscript within a maximum period of 3 from the acceptance of the manuscript. The review process is based on the substance of the manuscript (article quality), including reviewing:
    • The accuracy of the title
    • The suitability of the problems, objectives, theories, methods, and discussion.
    • The clarity in the presentation of images, tables, and diagrams
    • Whether or not the manuscript has been published elsewhere.
    • The most recent references
    • Comprehensive knowledge of the authors
    • The originality of the information
    • False facts
    • Evaluate the content of the manuscript 

Continuation:

  1. If within the time period the review of the manuscript has not been completed, the reviewer must confirm with the  Editor in Chief of AMERTA.
  2. During the manuscript review process, reviewers provide an evaluation of the manuscript through the review checklist/form available in the electronic journal application. If it is difficult, the reviewer can manually evaluate the manuscript on the review checklist/form in Ms. Words format sent by Section Editor or editorial secretary.
  3. The manuscript of the review results is returned to the section editor.
  4. The reviewer gives the decision of the manuscript of the review result
    • Accept Submission
    • Revisions Required(manuscript needs to be revised by the authors).
    • Resubmit for Review(manuscript needs to be revised by the authors and return to the reviewer).
    • Resubmit Elsewhere(manuscript is better to send to another journal, the reviewer refuses subtly).
    • Decline Submission.
    • See Comments(reviewer refuses subtly).

 

Publication Frequency

AMERTA is published twice a year (June and December), the e-journal edition is published earlier than the printed edition.

 

Open Access Policy

AMERTA provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Ethics

The editorial board establishes the ethic of scientific publication in the AMERTA to maintain the quality of the manuscript and avoid publishing/plagiarism violations in the publishing process,The ethical provisions apply to authors, editors, reviewers, and journal managers. The ethics of this publication are sourced from the Peraturan Kepala LIPI 5/2014 regarding Scientific Publication.

Authors Ethics

  1. Reporting; Authors must give information about the process and the result of their research to the editors honestly, clearly, and thoroughly also still keep their research data well and safely.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism;The authors must ensure that the manuscript has been sent/submitted to the editors is an original manuscript, written by themselves, from their own ideas, and not a copy from other’s ideas or manuscripts. Authors are strictly prohibited from naming the reference sources cited to other people’s names.
  3. Repeat submitting; The authors must inform that the manuscript sent/submitted to the editors is a manuscript that has never been sent/submitted to the other journal publisher/other publication. If redundancy is found, the editors will reject the manuscript.
  4. Authors status; The authors must inform the editor that the author has competencies or qualifications in certain areas of expertise according to the field of publication science, namely archaeology, anthropology, history, and culture. The authors must include affiliation, that is, the origin of the author’s institution. The authors who submitted the manuscript was the first author (co-author) so that if a problem is found in the process of publishing, it can be immediately resolved.
  5. Error Manuscript Writing; The authors must immediately inform the editors if there is an error in the manuscript, both the result of the review and the edit. Writing error include writing the name, affiliation/agency, quotation, and other writing that can reduce the meaning and the substance of the manuscript. I that happens, the authors must immediately propose an improvement to the manuscript.
  6. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; The author must understand the ethics of scientific publication to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties so that the manuscript can be processed smoothly and safely.

 Editors Ethics

  1. Publication Decision; Editors must ensure that the review of the manuscript is comprehensive, transparent, objective, fair, and thoughtful. This is the basis for the editor in making a decision on a manuscript, rejected or accepted. In this matter, the editorial board acts as the manuscript selection team.
  2. Publication Information; Editors must ensure that the writing guidelines for authors and other interested parties can be accessed and read clearly both print and electronic versions.
  3. Distribution of peer-review manuscript; Editors must ensure the reviewers and the material of the manuscript for review, also inform the term and process review clearly to reviewers.
  4. Objectivity and Neutrality; Editors must be objective, neutral, and honest in editing manuscripts regardless of gender, the business side, ethnicity, religion, race, intergroup, and the nationality of the authors.
  5. Confidentiality; Editors must keep every information well, especially regarding the author’s privacy and their manuscript distribution.
  6. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; Editors must understand the ethics of scientific publication to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties so that the manuscript can be processed smoothly and safely.

Reviewer Ethics

  1. Objectivity and Neutrality; The reviewer must be objective, neutral, independent, and honest in reviewing the manuscript regardless of gender, the business side, ethnicity, religion, race, intergroup, and the nationality of the authors.
  2. Clarity of reference source; The reviewer must ensure that the source of reference/citation of the manuscript is appropriate and credible (can be justified). If there is a mistake or deviation in writing references/ quotes, reviewers must immediately inform the editor to make improvements by the author according to the notes of the review.
  3. Peer-review Effectiveness; The reviewer must respond to the manuscript that has been sent by the editor and work according to the timetable which has been set (maximum 3 weeks). If additional time is needed must immediately inform the editorial secretary.
  4. Disclosure of conflicts of interest;Reviewer must understand the ethics of scientific publication to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties so that the manuscript can be processed smoothly and safely.

 Journal Manager Ethics

  1. Decision Making; Journal Manager/Editorial Board must set out a mission and objective of the organization, especially those relating to policymaking and journal publishing decisions without any specific interest.
  2. Freedom; Journal Manager must give reviewer freedom to create a comfortable work environment and respect the author’s privacy.
  3. Warranties and Promotion; The Journal manager must guarantee and protect intellectual property rights (copyright) and be transparent in managing funds received by third parties. In addition, the journal manager must publish and promote the result of the publication to the public by providing guarantees of benefits in the use of the manuscript.
  4. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; Journal Manager must understand the ethics of scientific publication to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties so that the manuscript can be processed smoothly and safely.

 

Copyright Notice

The publisher will apply the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)  to the Article for the purposes of publication in the journal on an Open Access basis.

The CC BY-NC-SA license allows users to copy and distribute, to create extracts, abstracts and new works from the article, to alter and revise the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes, and that the author is attributed and is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work. Further, any new works must be made available on the same conditions.

Authors who publish with AMERTA agree to the following terms:

AMERTA by Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License

 

Article Processing Charges

Every manuscript that goes to AMERTA’s editors and goes through the publishing process is free of any cost. The process includes sending the manuscript, editing process, publishing, publication, archiving, and maintenance. AMERTA provides honorarium to authors whose manuscript publishes. 

 

Self Archiving Policy

AMERTA permits and encourages authors to post items submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories as soon as the final version has been published in the journal, while providing bibliographic details that credit its publication in this journal.

 

Privacy Statement

The names and personal information entered into Amerta will be used exclusively for purposes relating to this journal and will not be made available for other purposes or for other parties.

 

Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism check is carried out by the editorial board through manuscript review based on the clarity of reference sources or quotation as well as checking related articles that have been published by using iThenticate.

 

Copyediting and Proofreading

Copyediting and Proofreading process for each article is carried out by the AMERTA Editorial Board assisted by Grammarly® writing-enhancement.

 

References Management

AMERTA is using Mendeley for references management.

 

Accreditation Certificate

AMERTA has been accredited by RISTEKDIKTI (the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education).