Focus and Scope

Gallaecia is an academic electronic journal, included within the platform rev{USC} and dedicated to the publication of academic and scientific works, with special reference to Galicia and the NW of the Iberian Peninsula. It is published once every year and is organized into three sections (“Articles”, “Archaeological news from Galicia and the NW Iberian Peninsula”, “Book Reviews”) on the fields of Prehistory, Archaeology, Epigraphy and Numismatics, Ancient History and Ethnography.

Peer Review Process

Items received to sections “Articles” and “Archaeological News”  by the editors before the 30th of November will be reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board to determine whether they meet the minimum requirements for publication, taking into account whether an item fits in any of the journal’s sections in terms of content and form and meets the journal’s requirements for submissions (i.e. adequately complies with the “Authors’ form” and, if applicable, includes needed permission for the reproduction of incorporated materials). If the submitted manuscript fails to meet the minimum requirements, the editors will promptly communicate its reasons for rejection to the author (within a month at the latest).

Manuscripts meeting the minimum requirements will be sent anonymously (via email if possible) to two experts who shall each provide an evaluation of the item’s suitability for publication within a month of receiving the item for review. The Editorial Board will select external or internal referees who are judged to be suited to the task of evaluating the content of submitted work on the grounds of their research background, sometimes on recommendation from members of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Advisory Board. The Editorial Board may also consider experts suggested by the author provided these have not been involved in the development of the work under consideration, have not read it previously and are not related to the author in a way that might exert an influence on judgment other than on the basis of strictly scientific criteria. In no event will authors be informed of the identity of referees (double-blinded reviewing). In order for an item to be published, both of the referees’ recommendations must be affirmative. In the event that only one of these referees recommends publication, the article will then be submitted to a third reviewer whose decision will be final.

Authors will be informed by e-mail of the unconditional acceptance, provisional acceptance or rejection of their manuscripts, as the case may be, no later than three months after receiving the article. Copies of the referees’ anonymous reports will be enclosed. Sometimes a single report written by the Editorial Board may be sent, based on the reviews submitted by the referees.

If a manuscript has been accepted provisionally, the Editorial Board may enclose a list of its own recommendations. These may include observations from copy editors and printers regarding style, writing, grammar and presentation, as well as mentioning points on which the publisher’s requirements have not been met. The author is expected to make the appropriate changes as soon as possible (and never taking more than a month), or else to respond regarding the changes proposed. A revision incorporating the changes should be e-mailed to the secretary of the journal. If necessary, the author should also send a document explaining how the changes made relate to what was requested by the reviewers or editors, and with any relevant observations from the author in response to the suggestions received.

Within two weeks after receiving the new version, the Editorial Board shall come to an agreement and give notification of its final decision on whether or not to accept the article for publication. This notification, which will by sent by email unless the author requests a printed copy, will state in which issue of the journal the item will be published.

Publication Frequency

Annual

Open Access Policy

Gallaecia has open access to its full-text content.

There are no processing charges.

Indexed/abstracted in

The journal is currently indexed in the following databases: APh, CIRBIC, DIALNET, DICE, LATINDEX, ISOC, REGESTA IMPERII, REBIUN, RESH, ULRICH’S DIRECTORY, MIAR.
Gallaecia has an impact of 3.977 (MIAR), its international readership is rated as 6% (DICE), it is category B according to ANEP and complies with 30 of the 33 LATINDEX criteria.

Disclaimer and exclusion of liability

Gallaecia is not responsible for the contents of any article, and the fact of its sponsoring the spreading of an article does not necessarily entail its agreement on the theses exposed in the article.  The editor, in any case, is free of any responsibility resulting from the author’s eventual violation of intellectual property rights.

Review form

Review form

Ethical Guidelines

The publication of scientific articles involves several actors, including the publisher, the editors in chief, the reviewers and the authors. It is expected that each of these agents have an ethical behaviour referred to ethical principles partially inspired in those provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines.

Publisher:

The publisher provides technical assistance and support to the journal editors in the use of the web platform, and maintains the software updated and able to facilitate the submission, evaluation and publication process of scientific works. The publisher also collaborates with the editors in chief indexing the papers, providing information about the databases requirements and, so, contributing to the Journal positioning in the usual rankings. Broadly, the publisher should helps to increase the editorial quality of the Journal, contributing to its visibility, internationalization and impact.

Editors in chief:

Editors in chief ensures that manuscripts submitted are evaluated based exclusively on its intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, political affiliation or philosophical trend of the authors. They guarantee the confidentiality of the work, not revealing the identity of the authors to other agents except to those authorized by the publisher, the potential reviewers, the actual reviewers or the editorial board of the journal. Editors can refuse a job if it not satisfy the formal requirements or approach a subject not belonging to the scope of the journal. Editors communicate within the deadlines, once they see the referees and heard the editorial board, the acceptance or rejection of the submitted papers.

Reviewers:

Reviewers should refuse to refer a paper if they do not feel qualified in the subject approached or if they can not take the evaluation within the deadline suggested by the Journal. The referee report should be objective and written in a clearly and reasoned style. Reviewers should avoid ad hominem references and offensive or demeaning comments; their suggestions should focus mainly on the improvement work. Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents, and their contents is not used in their own works. Reviewers should reject referee papers if they show a conflict of interest, for example a past or present relationship with the paper's authors or the institutions they depend.

Authors:

Authors should submit papers containing original research on a clearly identifiable and not previously published subject. They should not send articles including a substantial part of others papers or books already published. Papers should be written so that they can be understood or replicated by reviewers. If ideas of others are used, they should be clearly referenced; plagiarism is an unacceptable behaviour and its detection involves cancel the submission or remove it from the platform if it was already published. In case of co-authorship, all people that significantly contribute to the paper are considered its author; each author should be able to identify which parts of the work are own and which parts are from others authors, and must maintain confidentiality of the all contents until the article is published. Simultaneous paper sending to other Journals is a sufficient condition for archiving it. If in the process of the paper edition the authors find errors or improprieties, they should communicate to the editors in chief as soon as possible and cooperate in their correction. Authors should communicate the potential conflict of interest between the paper findings and the financial support.

These guidelines are consistent with the ethical code of the University of Santiago de Compostela, institution to which this Journal belongs.

https://www.usc.es/gl/goberno/valedor/codigoetico/CodigoEtico.html

Digital preservation policy

This journal develops various processes in order to preserve permanent access to digital objects hosted on its own servers:

- Backups.
- Monitoring of the technological environment to foresee possible migrations of obsolete formats or software.
- Digital preservation metadata.
- Use of DOI.

The files published on this website are available in easily reproducible formats (PDF)

Anti-plagiarism Policy

This journal is a member of Similarity Check, a multi-publisher initiative started by Crossref to screen published and submitted content for originality.

Through Similarity Check, we use the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted or published manuscripts.

By depositing all of our content in the Similarity Check database we allow other Similarity Check members to screen their submissions against our published articles.

Interoperability protocols

This journal provides an interface OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative – Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) that allows other websites and information services to harvest the published content metadata.

Specifications:

OAI-PMH Protocol Version 2.0
Dublin Core Metadata 1.1

URL for harvesters:
https://revistas.usc.gal/index.php/gallaecia/oai