GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS

IMPORTANT REMINDER

Please remember that a copy of your review goes to the author. Your comments are meant to be constructive. Positive as well as negative comments can be important and appropriate, if delivered properly. These should help the authors realize that any suggestions are not merely meant as criticisms, but rather are intended to improve the quality of the article so that the end result is a professional publication. Blatantly insulting or mean-spirited comments cannot be passed on to authors. Framing comments in as constructive and professional a manner as possible will improve the author’s ability to absorb them and increase our chances of receiving a publishable revision.

That said, PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME in the review. Rest assured, the review goes through an extensive reformatting process and your name will not appear in the version of the review that is sent to the author. Additionally, please include the name of the paper and the author’s name in the review.

INTRODUCTION

The Journal welcomes articles on subjects of interest to professional conservators. These articles may treat their subjects generally or in detail; they may include practical, scientific, theoretical, or historical topics. To ensure the quality of the Journal, and to assist the authors in the publishing process, we want to provide constructive criticism of the submissions.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

1.     The primary purpose is to determine whether the article constitutes a contribution to the literature of conservation or related fields. Consider the paper from the point of view of a specialist and a generalist. The paper should have some meaning for a reader who is not a specialist in the field being discussed. Be aware that authors are instructed to submit original material that has not been published previously (except in the AIC Preprints, specialty group preprints or postprints, or conference postprints without widespread circulation) and that the article should not have been submitted to another journal.

2.     Clarity is important. You should judge whether the article is clearly organized and well presented. If not, recommend changes. Detailed copyediting can be handled by our professional copyeditors.

3.     Specific points should be raised when necessary. You should ask questions concerning a conservation treatment. You should also question a technical or scientific procedure if something is omitted, misleading, or unclear. Judge whether a treatment is appropriate, well done, and ethical. Errors of all kinds should be pointed out. Key statements of fact, unless well known, should be supported by literature references and/or experimental evidence. Keep in mind that many times there are multiple approaches that might be taken to designing a scientific experiment or a conservation treatment. Even if you might have designed the project differently, changes should only be recommended if there are actual errors or clearly inappropriate steps taken in the project.

4.     Correct for style and errors in scientific terminology. The Journal does not publish footnotes and entertains limited endnotes. If you review a paper with footnotes, instruct the author to study the JAIC guidelines regarding the Journal’s policy and procedures surrounding this issue. Similarly, JAIC guidelines call for the use of metric rather than English measurements. Please point this out to the author if you notice that English measurements were used. Articles must conform to the Journal style before they are considered for final publication. If you find errors in specialized conservation or scientific terminology, please indicate them.

MECHANICS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

1.     Please type your comments and e-mail them to the AIC Publications Manager as a Word or rich text document. Do not mark any comments on the manuscript; only the comments e-mailed will be distributed to the editors and authors. A copy of your comments will be sent anonymously to the author.

2.     Indicate at the bottom of your comments your final recommendation:

Accept with Minor Revisions: The paper is almost ready for publication, requiring only simple revisions that could be accomplished within one month.

Accept with Major Revisions: More extensive revisions are required (such as rethinking interpretations of the data, finding and incorporating missed references into the narrative, rethinking the structure and presentation of data tables, adding illustrations, etc.). This category of acceptance should require about three months for revisions to be completed.

Reject but May Resubmit: The topic and basic approach of the treatment or experiments are appropriate to JAIC, but some of the work needs to be redone, or additional experiments need to be incorporated. Note that “Reject may resubmit” does NOT mean that the paper is unsuitable for JAIC, nor is it a negative response. It simply means that the requested revisions will probably require more than three months to complete. If you choose this option, emphasize in your comments that the author is, in fact, encouraged to resubmit the article and that the recommendation is not a negative one, but rather one which will allow more time for revisions.

Reject: The paper is unsuitable for JAIC. If you have ideas for a more appropriate venue, please feel free to mention them for the author’s benefit.

3.     Please remember that this is a confidential process. Do not discuss this paper with colleagues, except confidentially if you need some advice in preparing your review.

4.     Please e-mail your review to the AIC Publications Manager by the date requested. If you find that you cannot make the deadline, inform the AIC office immediately. Our timetable is tight because we promise to inform our contributors of the status of their papers within three months. The reviews are transmitted to the responsible associate editor, who makes a recommendation to the editor, who then must make a decision and inform the author by the promised date.