Editorial

Abstract

At the time of writing, we are beginning to emerge from our bunkers, blinking in the unaccustomed daylight of a world easing lockdown measures. The future is starting to look cautiously optimistic; still, however, there are clouds on the horizon in the shape of new Covid variants which might have us all retreating to our bunkers before we know it. With all the optimism of the moment, however, it is hoped that there will be some kind of return to normality in the summer and coming academic year. This will be a blessing to the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, as it may mean that reviewers will be easier to get in future. The biggest obstacle facing the Journal in publication is getting reviewers. We would very much like to thank those stalwart souls who have reviewed for us during the pandemic. The Journal relies heavily on reviewers, as they provide the academic credibility that validates the papers we publish. The reviewing process is incredibly important to academia as a whole; it is something that we all have to face at some time or another. Being reviewed can be an exceptionally gruelling process; having someone pass judgment on what we have written, telling us that parts need to be re-written, occasionally saying that the hours and years of work put into gathering, interpreting, and writing up the data have resulted in a flawed or even unpublishable result. Reviewing is also gruelling: it is something that we do unpaid, and it is no small job. We must read the work, consider the arguments, and pass judgment on the piece, preferably with constructive criticisms to help the author improve the work. No one really wants to be the cliché of ‘Reviewer Two’, a reviewer who is acerbic, destructive, and more focused on flexing their muscles than improving the work. Nonetheless, there are plenty of Reviewer Twos around, and most academics have had a bruising encounter with one of these at some stage. We might feel that the whole process is unwieldy and longwinded, and that it would be better to rely solely on the instincts of the academic editors. While it is certainly tempting, it would be a mistake. Peer reviewing means that we are not reliant on the opinion of a single person to validate a paper, and that reduces the risk of a cosy Old Boys’ club around academic publishing. This will only work, however, if people are prepared to participate in the process. The reason I have taken up a chunk of the editorial for this edition to talk about peer review is because all journals depend on reviewers. Please, if you are asked to review a paper, take the opportunity to pay forward the efforts of reviewers who have worked on your own papers and the papers we all benefit from reading. We all benefit from the work of others to get a paper into publication. Turning to this issue of the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, we have a good range of material and hopefully a good range of different topics. We have three papers that all have a Slavic connection, albeit not all entirely obviously so. We have a paper set in Sudetenland, on the border between Czechia and Germany, another set in Slovenia in the Balkans, and a third set in Canada, but concerning civilian internees from the AustroJOURNAL OF CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY 2020, VOL. 15, NO. 2, 168–170 https://doi.org/10.1080/15740773.2020.1925519