I also wanted to add that you need to have scholarly references for any paper sent in for a peer review.

Example: I am working on a paper that challenges a well-known anthropologist's interpretation of a rock art site. In order to make a successful challenge, I have to show I know what I'm talking about. So, for this archaeological-type paper, I have to:

* open with an intro about the site, including any published reports on it PLUS the official designation of the site. Since I'm challenging an interpretation, I also have to have an overview of what's been published about the Native Americans in the area and the styles of rock art (various periods had different styles.) Every site in the world has an official designation, and that's a necessary part of the paper (so it's very clear what section and what site is under discussion. In one town, there may be more than 5 different sites, some of which are very similar.)
* basic description.
* my research (based on photographing the site). Statistical analyses of each of the figures showing its link to certain styles (one style from 1500 BC, another from 800 BC, etc.)
* then my conclusions.

I need about 10 references to published material (and finding stuff that refutes her and supports my view is very difficult) -- this includes the articles on the site and on the people of the area and the styles of rock art.

I can't just write an article and submit it with no references (I could as a letter to a journal, but then I couldn't submit any real new findings and it wouldn't be taken as seriously as an article. And the chances of a letter getting into publication are lower than those of a good article.)