Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Publishing ethics

The Classical Review publishes informative reviews from leading scholars on new work covering the language, literature, history, archaeology, philosophy and reception of ancient Greece and Rome and Asia Minor. The Classical Review is committed to promoting the highest ethical publication practices. The only criterion for the selection of reviewers is expertise in the relevant field (no other criteria, e.g. gender, race, background, are taken into account).

Reviews should be original work and not previously published or submitted elsewhere. Reviewers are asked to concentrate on providing the reader with a general critical account of the scope and overall quality of the volume. The review should give an indication of the topics and approach of the book and place it within its relevant scholarly conversation(s). It should not just be a summary of the book, but rather engage with its ideas and evaluate its contribution to scholarship in a fair and objective manner. Once a review is submitted, it is edited for length and style. Since costs must be kept to a reasonable level, we are concerned to avoid publishing reviews where for any reason the book does not warrant it, and to avoid allowing excessive space. It is important that reviewers adhere to word count limits. Reviews that exceed the word limit will be taking space from other reviewers, and in the interest of fairness and equity in allocating space for each review, our policy is thus not to make exceptions.

Authors will be asked to sign a license to publish form prior to publication. Please see this form for full details on author rights, re-use of work and data sharing, including information about the posting of reviews online. We encourage authors to share their work responsibly, for more details see Cambridge Core Share (you may also find this page useful on social sharing).

Authors should declare any potential conflict of interest as soon as possible. This can be done at submission of the review, through to submission of the copyright form. Conflicts of interest are situations or relationships that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on your review. These may be financial, professional, contractual or personal in nature.

The Classical Review publishes in accordance with Cambridge University Press’s publishing ethics guidelines, which apply to authors, the editorial office and the journal as a whole. Anyone who believes that these guidelines have not been followed should raise their concern with the editor or email publishingethics@cambridge.org.

Complaints and allegations of misconduct will be investigated fully, as outlined here, and as per the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Complaints should be directed to the editorial office (classicalreview@classicalassociation.org). Complaints are handled by the editorial team in the first instance and, where necessary, The Classical Association Journals Board, which oversees the editorial policy of the journal (see our website for more information about the Journals Board). We aim to respond quickly, courteously and constructively. All complaints will be acknowledged and, if possible, a full response will be made within four weeks. If this is not possible, an interim response will be given within four weeks.

The Classical Review does not publish corrections unless the issues identified affect the review in a significant way or substantially impair a reader’s understanding. For example, minor spelling or grammar errors will not be corrected. Corrections will be considered under three categories: erratum (notification of an important error made by the journal that affects the publication record or the integrity of the review); corrigendum (notification of an important error made by the author(s) that affects the publication record or the integrity of the review); and retraction (decisions on retractions are made according to whether the issues raised substantially undermine the value or accuracy of the review). The editors’ decision about whether an amendment is required and the category in which the amendment is published is final.