Guidelines for Peer Reviewers


Editorial Procedure

In general, all articles published in Arctos go through a double-blind peer-review process. All submissions are initially reviewed for suitability by the Editorial Team in collaboration with the Editorial Advisory Board. The submissions chosen for peer review are sent to two scientifically competent reviewers who are asked to evaluate each submission's merits and to deliver an editorial recommendation. In order to ensure impartiality, a strict double-blind review policy is followed: the identities of both authors and reviewers are mutually withheld.

On basis of the reviewers' recommendations, the editors make the final decision about the article. The editors may decide that the article is (1) accepted in present form or with minor revisions, (2) accepted conditionally with major revisions, (3) rejected with an invitation to revise and resubmit, (4) rejected without invitation to revise and resubmit. In general, two positive evaluations are required for publication. Once the submission has been reviewed, the Executive Editor informs the author about the editorial decision and provides the author with a synopsis of the reviewers' comments.

In exeptional cases the editors may decide to publish contributions without subjecting them to peer-review. Since 2015, all peer-reviewed articles are indicated with the peer-review label of the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. 


Reader report questions

We do not expect the peer-review report to follow a given pattern in evaluating the article's merits and problems, but the report should address the following questions and contain an editorial recommendation:


1. General Evaluation

Paper is outstanding

Paper is clearly publishable, though not outstanding

Paper is probably publishable; a sound contribution

Paper probably cannot be salvaged


2. Specific questions

How important is the topic of the paper?

How well does the paper use the space it takes? Could it, e.g., be more concise or should some sections be extended?


3. Recommendation

Accept for publication in present form

Accept conditionally with revisions

Revise and resubmit: paper is not publishable in present form but promising enough to be encouraged for resubmission

Reject: Paper is not suitable for publication and resubmission should not be encouraged



Confidential comments to the Editors

Comments to the Author


A synopsis of the comments will be passed on to the author without revealing the identity of the reviewer.