Submissions for the 2017 call for papers are now closed. Submissions for 2018 will be posted later this year.
Why Publish with Amphora?
1) The Amphora editorial collective works closely with contributors and we provide feedback to all of our contributors, regardless of the publication outcome. Our team of editors are invested in mentoring postgraduate and early career researchers through the publication process. This is an ideal platform for authors who are new to publication and are keen to receive constructive and encouraging feedback.
2) We allow authors the chance to revise and resubmit their work before we determine which articles will undergo the peer-review process.
3) Our publication turn-around is relatively fast. We aim to complete the editing and publication process of each issue in under a year.
4) This journal is open access and is available online through our website and EBSCOhost. Hard-copy editions are also available upon request.
Articles & Reviews
Journal articles should be between 4000-5000 words and constitute an original piece of research. Manuscripts should not be under review or scheduled for publication by any other journal and should be substantially different from other published work. The collective asks that all manuscripts conform to our Style Guide.
Book reviews of single books should be 1000 words in length; reviews of two related books should be 1500 words in length. Exhibition reviews should also be 1000 words in length.
Guidelines for Book Reviews
It is not our intention to be overly directive in the way our reviewers write their book reviews. Most postgraduates and early career researchers have developed a personal style which is both academically astute but also accessible to the intelligent reader outside their discipline.
We do, however, offer the following advice for those seeking some guidance.
- You should present enough information to inform the reader of the book’s contents. This is accomplished in an economical fashion. A good review is not simply a summary of the book.
- Rather, the bulk of your review is your informed opinion. Do you think this book is an important contribution to your field of study? Who should read this book? What are the strengths and weakness of the study? Where does the book fit in the overall context of an academic discipline? Does the book break new ground or advance knowledge in significant ways? Does it bring a new methodology or theoretical approach to the topic?
- Not every reviewer will answer all these questions. Considering the answers to a couple of these questions, however, will ensure critical content in your review.
- It is important to evaluate the book in terms of the author’s intentions. This is usually implicit in the introduction. How well has the writer accomplished their intended task?
- Remember to review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticise the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
- There is a tendency for some reviewers to be either excessively positive or unrelentlessly critical. A sophisticated review requires a balanced approach. Even a glowing review should include valid criticisms and a poorly executed book has a couple of redeeming qualities embedded in the dross and it would be fair to point these out.
- Choose quotes carefully. Short relevant quotes are better than large chunks which break up the flow of the review.
- It is a good idea to read some other academic reviews in your field to gain a sense of how to write a good review
- All reviews should include the following information at the beginning of the review. The name of the book, the author, the publication, year of publication and the ISBN.
- At the end you should also include your full name and place of study. E.g. John Dalton, University of Melbourne.
Finally, as a book reviewer, part of your role is to examine the writer’s style. Is the book well written? Is it easy to understand? Does it flow well? Is the reader jolted around by poorly written prose? And just as you judge a book by these measures so too is your review also judged by the reader. Take this into account before sending us your final draft.
We may edit your review in terms of spelling, punctuation and grammar. We may also return your review to you if we feel it requires further changes before publication.
Potential books for review must have a publication date within the last two years.
Book reviews of single books should be 1000 words in length; reviews of two related books should be 1500 words in length.
Since 2014, The Amphora Issue has featured reviews of local exhibitions relating to the ancient world. This is a new endeavor for the journal collective and we would like to encourage reviews from Australia and New Zealand.
It is important that these reviews maintain the same critical rigour that we expect from a book review. We ask that reviewers provide some critical engagement with scholarship and/or comment on the ways in which curators display historical information and artefacts to engage the interest of the general public. The editorial collective does wish to receive a written catalogue of the artefacts that have featured in an exhibition.
If you are interested in producing an exhibition review for our latest issue, please contact the editorial collective.
Feature article and peer-reviewed article contributors will receive a complimentary hardcopy edition of The Amphora Issue via mail.
Book and Exhibition reviewers will receive a complimentary electronic edition of the journal.
Please forward your submission to the collective via email <email@example.com>