About the Journal
Peer Review Process
All articles are blind peer-reviewed.
Documenta Praehistorica is published one issue per year.
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
There is no Article Processing Fee charged to authors and articles are immediately available on the journal website once published.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal Documenta Praehistorica is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. It is therefore necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor (and the editorial board), the peer reviewer and the publisher.
The Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts (Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani) as publisher of the journal Documenta Praehistorica takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana and the editorial board of Documenta Praehistorica will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on existing Elsevier policies.
Duties of authors
Reporting standards: authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention: authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism: the authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: an author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Acknowledgement of sources: proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human subjects: if the work involves the use of human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subject must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of the editor and editorial board
Publication decisions: the editor of the journal Documenta Praehistorica is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with editorial board or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair play: the editor evaluates manuscripts solely for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality: the editor and any editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections in competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations: an editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institution and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it discovered years after publication.
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
Abstracting and Indexing
The articles of Documenta Praehistorica are indexed/reviewed in the following databases/resources:
- Anthropology Plus
- ERIH PLUS
Journal Documenta Praehistorica is supportted by:
Sources of Support
Journal Documenta Praehistorica is supportted by:
In 1964 a group of enthusiasts around the eminent Slovenian archaeologist Professor Josip Korošec at the University of Ljubljana established a new journal entitled A Report on the Research of the Neolithic and Eneolithic in Slovenia (Poročilo o raziskovanju neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji). Professor Korošec was the first editor and published the first two volumes, which were dedicated to the results of the excavations in the Ljubljansko barje region. After Professor Korošec passed away, the journal was edited by Professor Tatjana Bregant for the next twenty years (3rd to 21st Volumes). In this period, the journal became a respectable publication in Slovenia and the former Yugoslavia for topics relating to the Paleolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic periods. A number of palaeoenvironmental and palaeoeconomic studies were also published alongside the archaeological topics.
Since the 22nd Volume, the editor has been Professor Mihael Budja, and the editorial policy has shifted from regional to global scale, and for its 25th anniversary the journal changed its title to Documenta Praehistorica. The journal started to publish selected papers that had been presented at the international conference established at that time entitled ‘The Neolithic Seminar’, which has been organised annually by the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana for the past twenty years. The Seminars attracted leading researchers from the field and soon became a hub for discussing theoretical concepts, interpretative models and the results of interdisciplinary research studies and projects in Europe and Asia. A ‘Ljubljana school’ of Neolithic studies was formed within this intellectual milieu by a group of researchers who applied and developed ideas discussed at the seminars and in the journal. The papers in Documenta Praehistorica address studies that range from cultural and typological topics to archaeometry, from paleoclimate to paleoeconomy, from demography to archaeogenetics, and from symbolism to identity.
Since 1999, Documenta Praehistorica has had international members on the editorial board alongside Slovenian researchers, and since 2005 it has been enriched by a new web editor and a technical editor. With the formation of the journal’s web page in 2001 the published papers can also be accessed on-line.
Documenta Praehistorica is the only international journal to focus on interdisciplinary research based on Neolithic studies. The main strength of the journal is that it provides an opportunity for the publication of diverse approaches, theories and specific case studies, while maintaining a coherent editorial policy in addressing significant topics and studies relating to the Neolithic and Eurasian prehistory in general. Documenta Praehistorica has thus emerged as a central hub where the richness of different approaches, theories and ideas in contemporary Neolithic studies is easily recognisable.