Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Classical Quarterly
  4. Journal information
  5. Referees guidelines
Referees guidelines

The Editors thank you for agreeing to read this submission. They rely on expert referees for maintaining the high standard of the journal. Contributors are also grateful for the help they receive from referees.

1. Classical Quarterly has a policy of blind refereeing. The Editors try to ensure that papers sent out for refereeing bear no indications of the author’s identity. Please therefore write your report so as not to betray your own identity or any surmises about the author’s identity. We aim to send the referee’s report (anonymously, of course) to the author, whatever the recommendation and whatever the decision reached by the Editors on the submitted article.

2. If you have already commented on the attached article at the request of either the author or another journal, we would not normally expect you to comment on the paper for CQ.

3. Please let us know if you are aware of any potential conflict of interest that may prevent you from being able to offer a fair report. Competing interests are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on your report. They may include, but are not limited to, financial, professional, contractual or personal relationships or situations.

4. Please submit your report as an email attachment (in Word format) to Clare Roberts, the CQ Administrator, at classicalquarterly@classicalassociation.org (please do not send reports directly to the editor), if possible within 6 weeks. If you anticipate a delay, please contact the Administrator.

5. Please comment on:

  • the originality and scholarly significance of the paper
  • the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the paper
  • the use of evidence to substantiate the argument
  • the clarity of the argumentation
  • the style of the writing

    6. Please provide, if possible, a clear recommendation regarding publication. If you feel that the paper is promising, but needs revision before publication, we welcome explicit suggestions for the correction of errors, for further bibliography and for the addition or removal of material, and, particularly in the case of long articles, whether the length of the article is proportional to its significance, and whether it could profitably be shortened.

    7. You are welcome to contact the Editor directly if you have any concerns about the paper.

    8. Please treat the article in confidence and do not share it, or any information it contains, with anyone.

    9. The Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers that you may find helpful.