Why? |
Much of Classics remains an article-driven field (less so than math or physics, more so than history). The scholarly article is not the feeble stepchild of the book, but a respected and important medium for contributing to the field. |
| As you try to break into the field, to fashion your own intellectual and scholarly identity, you may find it easier to explore and experiment in 20 pages than 200. |
| Conference papers are fun to write and to give, but they can be time-consuming and the written word is where the rubber meets the road, where you must provide citations, submit to peer-review, and take responsibility for creating a ktêma eis aei. |
|
| Write
an Article |
| Before you submit |
Writing
an article takes time.
- Assemble
a small pile of others' articles that you consider to be exemplary.
If you cannot think of any, ask a professor to suggest a few.
Read them carefully. You will have to develop your own style,
sensibility, and scholarly voice, but this takes time and it can
be useful to identify practices that you especially like and dislike.
- A seminar
paper is not an article. Even a first-rate seminar paper
will likely require several re-writes before it is ready to be
submitted to a journal. Have a professor read a draft; then re-write;
then have that professor read the new draft; then re-write again;
repeat these steps until you and the professor agree that the
paper is ready to go. Do not be afraid to ask us to read multiple
drafts (reading stuff is part of our job; asking us to read stuff is part of yours). Do not be discouraged if you have to re-write a paper
10 times before it is ready to go.
|
| Shopping |
Pick the right journal.
Journals envisage and serve particular readerships. Send your article to the right journal, so that it stands a better chance of being accepted and so that it will be read by the audience that you have in mind. If your paper is on Roman
imperial price legislation, Ramus may not offer the best
home.
Different journals tend to feature different formats. ZPE is particularly friendly to new editions of texts. CQ is especially welcoming of textual notes. JHS tends to prefer longer pieces. Some are more inclined to host "theory" than others.
Eligibility to submit varies. Hesperia is "devoted primarily to the timely publication of reports on projects sponsored by the School" [source]; contributors to HSCP have tended to have some connection to Harvard; similarly, ClAnt. REG accepts submissions in French only.
An editor can shape the intellectual agenda of a journal, with the result that the content and scope of articles in a given periodical may change with the editor. This is, in my opinion, generally a good thing. Once you have found a few potentials, browse the past 2 or
3 years in order to get a sense of what the editors are interested
in..
Submit to a peer-reviewed / refereed journal. If you are not sure whether a particular journal qualifies, read the blurb in the inside cover, on the web, or consult Ulrich's Periodical Directory, which is not always 100% up-to-date, but is very handy.
Aim high: Send your article to the journal that seems to be the best for the particular subject. Let the editor decide that the piece is not up to snuff; don't you make the decision for her. |
| Submitting |
Do
not submit to more than one journal at a time. When
you submit, observe the following guidelines:
- Include
a cover letter, on department letterhead. Be brief.
Some include a word about themselves and a description
of the paper's contents. I urge against this, unless the
journal's submission guidelines call for it (see
what my own submission
boilerplate looks like). Do not write a bio of yourself, the history of your interest in the subject, a declaration of the importance of your argument. Know your name: decide whether you want to be known as Barnaby M. Hose, B. Mordechai Hose, B. M. Hose, whatever, and then stick with it--makes life easier for everyone.
- Include
the number of copies required by the journal. Some still require multiple
copies on paper; others invite digital submission. If you submit digitally,
be sure to attach the document in multiple formats; one should
be RTF with the .rtf suffix ("Save As" foo.rtf).
- Format your
article to spec. Some journals offer guidelines for submissions;
follow these scrupulously. Other journals do not; in this case
flip through recent issues to see how they do things. If a journal
recommends a particular Greek font use it.
- Withhold
any information that might reveal your identity. Do not thank
Dr. Lucy Latin for her invaluable help; do not say that this paper
began its life in a seminar on Tibullus; do not say that your
advisor likes you and wants you to publish this paper.
|
| Waiting |
After
you have submitted the paper, you should receive a notification of
receipt from the editor.
If you have not heard anything
in three months, send a polite email enquiring as to the status
of your paper. |
| Revising |
After
some period of time (3-9 months) the editor will write to tell you
one of the following things:
- the article
has been accepted and requires no revisions
- the article
has been accepted on condition of certain revisions
- the article
has been rejected, but that you might consider re-writing it and
re-submitting an improved version at some later date
- the article
has been rejected, period
American journals
usually include 1 or 2 anonymous reader-reports with a letter from
the editor. Some journals do not send reader-reports
but rather a letter from the editor that folds the readers' recommendations
into a single document.
Some readers
take their duties more seriously than others. You, however, should
take all reports seriously. Even reports that readers have not devoted
much time to can indicate passages in your paper that are likely
to elicit knee-jerk negative reactions. All information is potentially
useful.
Make your revisions
and send the article back. Give yourself enough time to do a good
job. Do not be afraid to overhaul sections if the readers and editor
call for it. But do return the revised draft promptly, say, within
2 to 3 weeks. This should be the last time
you make any substantial changes. Now is the time to add information
that will reveal your identity. |
| Editorship |
Every editor is different. Make the most of their suggestions. Take
the time to digest their comments as well as the readers'. Several
of my articles have been improved considerably by diligent editors.
The best editors are decisive, clear, and helpful. They will often guide authors through the readers' recommendations, indicating which they consider crucial and which trivial. They will be clear about your next step: (a) The submission is accepted; please revise and return; (b) the submission is accepted on condition of certain stipulated changes; (c) t he submission is rejected but if you can address the readers' objections, please consider re-submitting; (d) the submission is rejected and you should look to another journal.
Editors of
English-language journals, especially Americans, tend to be more
interventionist than continental Europeans, who may not send reader's
reports or require any changes at all. This does not make these
journals less creditable--peer-review is the decisive factor. It
is simply the case that (a) the paperwork happens behind the scenes
and is not accessible to you and (b) European editors tend to assume
that you have already elicited sufficient input so that the paper
is either publishable or not. |
| Proofs |
Some
time after you have sent off a corrected draft you will receive
"proofs" in the mail (some journals are hip and send PDFs
by email). This is (in theory) an exact representation of what the
article will look like. It is your responsibility
to read and correct the proofs with extreme care. Errors that you
do not catch will appear in print. Do not assume that the editor
will catch typos, run down citations, correct accents, etc. This
is your job. At this point you should be correcting only typos and
gaffes that you somehow missed; do not add bibliography; do not
re-write paragraphs; do not thank your mom.
Some journals
require you to return corrected proofs within some stated period
of time; comply. If they stipulate nothing, return
the proofs within 2 weeks or so. I always return the corrected proofs
(neatness is a good idea) along with a written list of edits (see
an example of one these lists). |
| Offprints |
Most
journals will send you some number of offprints free of charge. It
can be a good idea to send some of these to scholars whose work particularly
influenced or aided the composition of your paper, colleagues with
whom you would like to open dialogue, friends who teach in under-resourced
institutions. Offprints offer a handy way to start a discussion with
other scholars. |
| CV |
I
think that it is good practice to distinguish in your CV peer-reviewed
articles from non-. To people whose opinions affect you the one
is worth more than the other.
Months may
elapse between the time an article is accepted and the time it appears
in print. An article that is "forthcoming" (i.e. one that
has been [1] accepted by the editor, [2] revised as required, and
[3] approved for publication) carries weight equal to one that has
already appeared. Indicate forthcoming articles in your CV (see
how I do that). |
| Another Voice |
Ruth
Scodel and Marilyn B. Skinner, former editors of TAPA, have
also compiled
some tips that you might find useful. |
|
|
Write
a Review |
| Being Invited |
One
reviews books by invitation. If you are dying to review the most
recent book on the imperfect, talk to some professors; see whether
one of them would be willing to talk you up to a journal. |
| Should you accept? |
Book
reviews can be useful. But a good book review takes a lot of time
to write. Your time is a precious. I urge you to think hard whether
your time is best spent writing articles or writing book-reviews.
It is flattering to be asked to review a book, but think carefully
before you agree. To potential employers, tenure committees, etc.
articles look better than reviews. And, in my opinion, you
learn more from writing an article than from writing a book review. |
| If you do |
A
good book review should, in my opinon, not summarize.
Rather, it should assess and analyze. It should bring something new
to the subject. Keep in mind that the reviewer's duty is to review
the book that was written, not the one that wasn't. |
|