Peer review is the foundation of quality in research for both books and journals, ensuring that published research is rigorous and ethical. Peer reviewers can access a number of resources to assist them with their peer reviewing duties:
- How to peer review journal articles: a practical introduction to conducting peer reviews, especially for those who are new to the process
- Ethics in peer review
- Online peer review systems, and how to anonymously annotate manuscripts
- Peer review FAQs
The journal administrator is also happy to help with any queries regarding undertaking peer review assignments. Please contact the Editorial Office with any questions.
This journal uses ScholarOne for online submission and peer review. ScholarOne is a “comprehensive workflow-management system for scholarly journals, books and conferences”. Further information on ScholarOne can be found here, and queries can be directed to the Editors, Robert Cowan and Diana Burton.
Antichthon: Guide for reviewers of submissions
The Editors of Antichthon are grateful to all who referee for the journal. In general, the Editors appreciate the submission of comments within six weeks; if this proves impossible, reviewers should let the Editors know that their report will be late and indicate a probable date of completion.
Invited reviewers who do not feel competent to assess the submission should let the Editors know as soon as possible to arrange another referee.
In writing their report, reviewers should adhere to the following guidelines:
- Antichthon practices a strict policy of anonymous refereeing, so reports should not betray the reviewer's own identity nor contain any speculation as to who the author might be.
- Reports will be sent to the author, so we ask that reviewers use appropriate language in their comments.
Submissions should be evaluated with the following three criteria in mind.
- Is this an original and significant contribution to the field?
- Is the argument couched in terms that are likely to interest a broad range of classicists? (Note that this does not exclude highly technical discussions; the only condition is that the stakes be made as clear as possible to the members of ASCS as a whole.)
- Is the article clearly and engagingly written?
Reviewers should make a clear recommendation regarding publication, choosing one of the following categories:
(1) Publish, either as is or with minor revisions.
Reviewers should choose this category if they believe that the submission makes an original and significant contribution to the field AND can be published either in the present form or with minor revisions of a kind that do not affect its substance. Reviewers should specify any revisions that they think are necessary.
(2) Do not publish.
Reviewers should choose this category if they believe that the submission does not at this point meet the journal’s high standards. Since the author may well continue to work on the topic, any comments and suggestions for improvement will be very welcome.
(3) Revise and resubmit.
This verdict is to be used only if the reviewer believes that the submission cannot be published without major revisions but is nevertheless so significant that Antichthon should actively pursue it for possible publication. Please specify the revisions that would be necessary.
Reviewers willing to evaluate a piece after resubmission should indicate this to the Editors when returning their report.