Editorial Policies

NOTICE: The following are the editorial policies of the journal Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica (SAA).
If you are an author considering submitting to SAA, please see the guidelines and use the online submission form.


Focus and Scope

Our main aim is a high scientific standard.

Studia Antiqua Archaeologica is a journal in which the aims and the scope are based on the originality of the articles and on interdisciplinary studies, concretized in a peer-review process.

We accept for publication articles from every field connected or related to archaeology and ancient history in which the new contributions are clearly defined.

Section Policies

Open Submissions Indexed Peer Reviewed
Open Submissions Indexed Peer Reviewed
Open Submissions Indexed Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

→ Each submitted manuscript is assigned by the Editorial Committee to two peer-reviewers selected from the International Advisory Board.
→ The peer-reviewers review the manuscript and send their report to the Editor-in-Chief using the SAA review form (available for download below). This process is strictly confidential.
→ The review forms contain the peer-reviewers’ comments and decision regarding publication: the article is accepted as is, accepted with minor/major revisions, or is rejected from publication.
→ If the results of the two reviews are completely different (for example, “accept” and “reject”), the Editorial Board may assign a third reviewer.
→ After the peer-reviewers make these recommendations, they are analysed by the scientific committee; the scientific committee decides, following the evaluations, which article can be published in our journal.

Reviewers form

The SAA Reviewers form can be downloaded as docx or pdf.

Publication Frequency

Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica is published on an annual basis.

Open Access Policy

Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica it is an open access journal. All content is freely available without charge to any user or his/her institution.

Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

As an author, you retain rights for large number of author uses, including use by your employing institute or company. These rights are retained and permitted without the need to obtain specific permission from Editor. These include:

→ the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to full texts of the articles;
→ the right to present the journal article at a meeting or conference;
→ the right to include the journal article, in full or in part, in a thesis or dissertation;
→ patent and trademark rights and rights to any process or procedure described in the journal article;
→ the right to use the journal article or any part thereof in a printed compilation of works of the author;
→ the right to prepare other derivative works, to extend the journal article into book-length form, or to otherwise re-use portions or excerpts in other works, with full acknowledgement of its original publication in the journal.

Manuscript Structure

Manuscripts should be structured as follows:

  • a title page with the title of the article, name(s) of author(s), email address(es) of the author(s), and their affiliation(s); the author(s) ORCID number(s) can also be added
  • an abstract between ~100 and ~200 words
  • a short list (between four and eight entries) of keywords
  • the main content (recommended structure: introduction, methods, results & discussion, and conclusions)
  • supplementary content (e.g. acknowledgments section, catalogues, etc.)
  • a list of references


An offprint is available immediately upon publication and is an exact copy of author’s complete article. Offprints are provided freely to authors in either paper or digital (PDF) form. All authors automatically receive a free link to the full text of their article, which will allow other people to view their work without a subscription.


Proofs are sent to the corresponding author by e-mail as a PDF file. These should be read carefully, paying particular attention to any tables, figures and references, and then corrected and returned to the Editor-in-Chief by e-mail within ten business days of receipt. Extensive changes at the proof stage are not permitted. In the event of important developments in a field that affect the manuscript arising after the final revision, a ‘Note added in proof’ may be permitted.


Studia antiqua et archaeologica prefers to receive submissions in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish.

Submission Process

All submissions are considered by the Editor-in-Chief in the first instance. Suitable papers are peer-reviewed by a minimum of two experts. Peer-reviewers (also known as Referees) are selected for their knowledge and expertise and may include, but are not limited to Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica‘s Editorial Board. Submissions are assessed on the potential interest of new historical discoveries, ideas and methods and significance.

Authors are strongly advised to read the notes for contributors before submitting a manuscript. Submitted manuscripts that do not adhere to Studia antiqua et archaeologica‘s standards may be returned to the author(s).

Conflict of Interest

All funding sources supporting the work and all institutional or corporate affiliations are acknowledged. Except as disclosed on a separate attachment, I certify that I have no commercial association (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent-licensing arrangements) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article, and that I accept full responsibility for the conduct of the trial, had full access to all the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

Ethics and Malpractic

Publication ethics and malpractice statements for the journal STUDIA ANTIQUA ET ARCHAEOLOGICA are based on Publishing ethics resource kit of Elsevier and follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and are based on the guidelines of Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (COPE).


Publication Decisions
The Editorial Board of our journal is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the
scope of the journal.

Fair Play
The Editorial Board and the reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the author’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology.

The Editorial Board must ensure that all material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review. The Editorial Board and the editorial staff must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editorial Board in their 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. Editors should recuse themselves 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 authors 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.

Journal self citation
An editor should never conduct any practice that obliges authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of acceptance for publication. Any recommendation regarding articles to be cited in a paper should be made on the basis of direct relevance to the
author’s article, with the objective of improving the final published research. Editors should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process; however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals. Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it
is discovered years after publication.

Publication decisions
The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.



Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific

Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editorial Board so as to excuse himself from the review process.

Any manuscripts received for review should be treated with strict confidentiality. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except when authorised by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Source
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under
consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.



Reporting Standards
The authors of manuscripts should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit
others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention
The authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their investigations for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data for a reasonable period of time after the publication of their paper.

Originality and Plagiarism
The contributors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming
results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
The authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or
grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are listed in the paper, and that all co-authors have
seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal as well as to cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to retract or correct the paper.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.