Guidelines for Referees
The journal relies on the expertise of referees for ensuring the high standards of its contributions, and we are most grateful that you have agreed to review this submission. Contributors also often have a great deal to gain from the advice and constructive criticism they receive from referees. In exceptionnal cases you can be asked to report on an amended text.
1. If you have already read and commented on the submission for either the author or another journal, please let us know immediately.
2. Please submit your report as an email attachment to the Editor at callatay@kbr.be if possible within 4 weeks. If you anticipate a delay, please do let the Editor know as soon as you are able.
3. The Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie = Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Numismatiek en Zegelkunde has a policy of blind refereeing, and we aim to ensure that papers sent out for refereeing bear no indication of the author’s identity. There is no fixed format or length for a report, but it would be helpful if you can write it in such a way that it can be sent to the author (whatever the recommendation): it should not betray any indication of your own identity, and if any confidential comments they should be sent separately to the Editor.
4. We would be grateful if you could comment particularly on:
- the originality and scholarly significance of the submission
- the article’s suitability for the RBN: where possible, articles should be intelligible and of interest to a multi-disciplinary readership
- the strengths and weaknesses of the paper’s methodology
- the clarity of the argument
- the use of evidence, references and (where appropriate) illustrations to substantiate the argument
- whether the text length and number of illustrations is appropriate to the topic of the article
- the style of the writing and the quality of the language
The following outline may inspire you in drawing up efficiently your report. It is inspired by similar notes for the Papers of the British School at Rome and the Revue Numismatique.
Referee report for the RBN
Title:
1. Does the article give unpublished results? Are these sufficiently developped?
2. Are the conclusions well supported?
3. Is the general structure of the article satisfactory?
4. Are all illustrations and tables necessary and of good quality?
5. Is the bibliography up to date? Are there superfluous references?
6. Is the language correct?
7. Does the title reflect the content?
8. Does the abstract cover correctly the content of the article?
9. Should parts of the article be more detailed? Which?
reduced? Which?
eliminated? Which?
Give your general opinion on the article?
Publishable as such
Needs some adjustments before publication
Not suitable for the RBN
If you judge an article to be unpublishable or in need of adjustments we will be happy to receive you detailed comment on a separate document.
This comment, which will remain anonymous, will be communicated to the author(s).
NAME OF THE REFEREE:
DATE:
© KBGN-SRNB, 2008-2021
