Focus and Scope

Berkala Arkeologi covers scientific information from the discipline of Archaeology mainly in the Indonesian Archipelago, and Southeast Asia. Interest from other disciplines (such as history, anthropology, architecture, geology, etc.) must be related to archaeological subject to be covered in this journal.

We aim to be a credible and free of charge platform for publishing scientific articles on the disciplines above.

Open Access Policy

BERKALA ARKEOLOGI provides immediate open access to its content, on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Plagiarism Check

All articles submitted to Berkala Arkeologi will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism. We are using Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate, which will yield similarities report in percentage, learn more about it here. A failure to pass this checking stage will result in the rejection of your work.

Publication Frequency

Berkala Arkeologi published twice a year in two times issues, Number 1 and 2. Each Number are scheduled for publication in: May and November.

Certification Decree

BERKALA ARKEOLOGI has been accredited by the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology, & Higher Education (KEMRISTEKDIKTI). Click here to view their decree.

Article Processing Charges

BERKALA ARKEOLOGI is a free publishing platform. All article submitted to this journal is NOT A SUBJECT to these following charges:

  • Article processing charges (APCs)
  • Submission charges
  • Page charges
  • Colour charges
  • Or any instance where money is required to complete the publication process.

Peer Review Process

BERKALA ARKEOLOGI is published on the basis of the Open Journal Systems platform which provides processing of editorial completion, publications and after printing support. All article submitted within the OJS Platform is a subject of peer-review editorial processing. A scheme of performing a peer review of research paper manuscripts submitted to publication:

1. The research paper manuscripts entering the editorial office are subjected to the obligatory procedure of peer review;

2. A chairman of the editorial board checks the paper manuscript for compliance with the journal scope and requirements for manuscript preparation;

3. After the manuscript is considered at the editorial board meeting, it is sent for a peer review to the expert (DSc. or PhD), having the specialization that is closest to the field of knowledge touched upon in the paper. If the paper is inconsistent with the journal scope, the author is informed about the impossibility of its publication;

4. A type of reviewing is double blind (anonymous). The manuscript received by a reviewer is the private property of the author(s) and includes the information not to be disclosed in the press. The reviewer is not allowed to copy the manuscript and to pass the manuscript to another person for a peer review;

5. Duration of the peer review process is at least two weeks for each round. More than one round of peer review is very likely, depending on the overall quality of the submitted article;

6. The reviewer estimates:

  • the conformity of the paper content to the paper title;
  • the paper structure (subject of research, problem statement, a course of conducting the research, results and conclusions);
  • the presence of scientific or technical novelty;
  • merits and demerits of the paper.

7. All materials provided on reviewing are always checked regarding plagiarism;

8. The reviewer makes a deduction on the expediency of the paper publication:

  • the paper should be accepted;
  • the paper should be accepted after the insignificant revision. A text of the review is sent to the author with a suggestion to insert the required amendments and an addendum into the paper or to rebut with reasoning the reviewer's remarks. Then the manuscript has to be considered at the editorial board meeting to check the fulfillment of the reviewer's requirements;
  • the paper should be reconsidered after a deep revision. A text of the review is sent to the author with a suggestion to rework the paper. Then the paper rewritten by the author is delivered for the second reviewing;
  • the paper should be rejected. A reasoned denial is sent to the author.
  • The paper cannot be accepted for the second consideration.

9. Manuscripts of the papers accepted for publication are not returned to the author;

10. Manuscripts of the papers not accepted for publication are returned to the author together with a text of the reasoned denial.

Publication Workflow

Publication Ethics

BERKALA ARKEOLOGI is committed to provide a platform where publishing ethics is a major aspect of the editorial and peer-review process. The Editorial process for a submission to the journal consists of a plagiarism check (see separate explanation below for details), review (double blind peer review), followed by a section editor's decision to accept or decline the submission.

If accepted in the review stage of the Editorial Process, the submission then goes through the editing stage which consists of copyediting, layout and proofreading. Then the submission is scheduled for publication in an issue of the journal.

The Editorial Process will be conducted by a team of Editors, Sections Editors, Copyeditors, Layout Editors, and Proof-readers. Editorial process chain in all its parts ensures the integrity of the published materials.

BERKALA ARKEOLOGI follows closely a set of guidelines and recommendations published by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and Council of Science Editors (CSE) Editorial policy statements. All parties involved in the publishing process including editors, reviewers, authors and others are required to be familiar with them and especially to adhere to the publication ethics guidelines and malpractice statements described below.

Publication and authorship

  • All contributions conform to the focus and scope of BERKALA ARKEOLOGI which can be read above
  • All manuscript should be written and organized in accordance to the Authors’ guidelines
  • Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not be under simultaneous consideration by any other journal
  • Manuscripts submitted to this journal should not have been published elsewhere in identical or substantially similar form.

Author’s responsibilities

  • All authors, including co-authors, are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check and validate results submitted to the journal for publication. This should be followed by the statement to the Editor that all data are real and authentic.
  • Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication.
  • Authors should confirm that the manuscript is not in any portion under consideration elsewhere or published in another journal. This should be clearly stated in the letter to editor.
  • Authors need to ensure that all of them contributed to the scientific results and findings in the sufficient extent to be regarded as a co-authorship. “Guest authorship” without the actual involvement of the co-author and “Ghost authorship” without listing of real author are considered as a very serious misconduct.
  • Authors should have no commercial or non-commercial conflict of interest.
  • Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and to the best of their ability to respond to the requirements of the Reviewers and Editors for the corrections and improvement of the manuscript.

Peer review / responsibility for reviewers

  • To agree to review only if they have required expertise to give proper assessment and judgement of the submitted paper.
  • To agree to review only if they are confident they can return the review within reasonable timeframe as set by the Editorial office.
  • Indicate if any of conflict of interest might arise by performing review.
  • Reviewers should point out on relevant published work which is not cited in the article.
  • Reviewers should immediately inform the Editors if any form of plagiarism is identified within submitted work including “text and data recycling” as well as “redundant or duplicate publication”.
  • By agreeing to review, reviewer is obliged to keep the confidentiality of the peer review and to refrain from taking advantage of the information contained in the submitted work.

Editorial responsibilities

  • Editors will ensure that all submissions go through the fast and fair peer-review and editorial procedure. The fast publication is a priority of Editors-in-chief, Section editors and Managing editors.
  • Editors take full responsibility for everything published in the BERKALA ARKEOLOGI JOURNAL, hence the acceptance or rejection of the submitted work is Editor’s sole decision. However, this decision should be based only on the originality and the quality of the paper and should not be affected by the religious, national, political or any other influences.
  • Editors should express the concern and act immediately if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.

Publishing ethics issues and procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

  • BERKALA ARKEOLOGI together with its editors make a great effort and devote considerable time to maintain and encourage academic integrity by ensuring that all published material conforms to the internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors seek assurance that research disclosed in the article has been approved by appropriate body.
  • If an inaccuracy, misleading text or wrong explanations are found in the published article, it must be corrected promptly.
  • In the case of seriously flawed article, a prompt reaction which might lead to the complete retraction of the article will ensue. The procedure for retracting articles will follow guidance produced by COPE.
  • Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
  • Editor will promptly respond to possible misconduct or inappropriate behaviour of any parties involved in the publishing process including authors and reviewers. Misconducts can range from minor to serious breaches of the publication ethics. The procedure for dealing with such circumstances will strictly follow flowcharts and guidelines published by COPE.
  • Editors will be willing to publish corrections, erratums, clarifications and apologies if the need for doing so arises.
  • All complaints will be seriously investigated by the editor regardless of who files the complaint.