PEER REVIEW GUIDELINES

APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The process of peer review is critical to the APT Bulletin as a scholarly journal. It helps us understand whether sound preservation practices were followed in a project, whether the ideas proposed or the research conducted are original, and whether a paper would make a valuable contribution to the field. Peer reviewers receive an early look at the newest papers and the latest preservation work and have a hand in shaping the information that is disseminated about preservation best practices. Without the expertise of reviewers, the APT Bulletin would not be able to offer the consistently excellent, cutting-edge information that our audience has come to expect. 

The peer-review process is straightforward. As papers come in, we contact potential peer reviewers by means of an e-mail broadcast. Once assigned, papers and accompanying illustrations are sent to the reviewers, who are given approximately two weeks to complete the review. Guidelines and a response form are provided with each paper. The APT Bulletin editorial staff requests that reviewers refrain from scribbling aggressively on the manuscripts. If the reviewer feels it is necessary to write directly on the manuscript, they should do so in clear, neat handwriting. All other comments should be written directly on the response forms. Please do not use the Comment function in Microsoft Word unless you remove your user initials. Though reviewers may return their comments and completed forms by e-mail, mail, or fax, the Bulletin staff prefers that the response forms be returned by e-mail as a Microsoft Word document. 

Papers submitted to the APT Bulletin are assumed to be original work that has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. 

If you discover after receiving an article that you or your firm was involved in the project, we ask that you disqualify yourself and notify us as soon as possible so that we can find another reviewer. We will be happy to send you another article to review in the future. 

Reviewers are asked to consider the following criteria: 

General 

  1. Does the paper contribute new knowledge to the field of preservation technology? 
  2. Are the concepts in the paper based on thorough research, including investigation of original source materials and a comprehensive knowledge of the subject? 
  3. Does the paper contain purely speculative material? 
  4. If applicable, were sound preservation practices followed? 
  5. Is material included in the paper for commercial advantage? 

Subject Treatment 

  1. Does the paper cover its stated objective? 
  2. Is there sufficient evidence to support the author's thesis? 
  3. Is the information accurate and consistent? 
  4. Is background information treated adequately? 
  5. Are descriptions clear and presented in enough detail? 
  6. Does the title reflect clearly the content of the article? 
  7. Is the subject closely related to preservation technology? 

Presentation 

  1. Should the text be expanded or condensed? 
  2. Is the text written clearly and organized logically? 
  3. Are the figures used appropriately to illustrate the text? 
  4. Are the references sufficient? 

We ask that your comments be as specific as possible, referencing page numbers where appropriate. This will assist the author in his or her revisions and facilitate the editorial review process that follows. Please focus on the content of the article rather than on issues of editorial style.