For Reviewers

Review Process

  1. Choose a book to review

Refer to our list of Books for Reviews or choose your own title. Please note that Rhea prioritized titles by emerging rather than established scholars.

  1. Submit a review request

Use the Review Request Form or send an email. Be sure to indicate which book you are interested in reviewing, the reason you are interested in this selection, and your relevant background and experience. If you know the reviewee in a personal capacity, please disclose this so we can determine whether this constitutes a conflict of interest. Someone from our editorial team will respond to your request shortly.

  1. Obtain copy of book

Once you have been selected to review a book, we will arrange to provide you with a copy, which may be physical or digital.

  1. Submit review

We ask that you commit to returning your review no more than four months from the receipt of the book. If you cannot make this deadline, however, please communicate with us so that we can make accommodations.

  1. Participate in optional dialogue with author(s)

As part of our effort to foster collaboration and transparency in scholarly discourse, Rhea offers reviewers the opportunity to participate in a short dialogue with authors. A member of the editorial board will contact the reviewer two months after receipt of the book to see whether the reviewer is interested in this option. If so, Rhea will reach out to the author; reviewers should not contact authors directly. Should the author agree to a dialogue, the reviewer will pose 3-5 questions that arise from their reading of the manuscript. These questions and the ensuing dialogue can address problems, misinterpretations, or salient aspects of the work in question. This feature is designed to ensure that Rhea accurately represents each book’s goals, evidence, and argument. Any profanities or abuse will not be tolerated. The Editorial Board reserves the right to discontinue the dialogue and/or review for any reason.

  1. Submit review and questions

Reviewers should email their completed review and any accompanying questions to be lightly edited for punctuation, grammar, and conformance with our Guidelines. If applicable, the editor will then pass along the questions to the author. The author will have three weeks to submit their responses to the editor. Once received, the author’s answers will be returned to the reviewer, who can (if they wish) add a short response to the dialogue with this enhanced understanding of authorial intent.

  1. Publish

Finally, the book review and the ensuing dialogue will be published online.

Guidelines

Guiding Principles


Reviews should be helpful to the reader. They should:

  • Accurately convey the book’s ideas, arguments, evidence, and structure;

  • Situate the book within the broader field of scholarship related to it;

  • Determine the purpose and best uses of the book;

  • Tell the reader something that they didn’t already know.

  • Point out factual or methodical issues that the reader should be aware of.


Reviews should be fair to the author. They should:

  • Take the work seriously and sincerely, on its own merits;

  • Recognize the author’s objectives and point of view;

Be constructive, rather than critical for the sake of being critical.


Review Format


Please start your review with a full citation of the work being reviewed:

Sarah A. Rous, Reset in Stone: Memory and Reuse in Ancient Athens (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2019).

Then include your full name as you would like it to appear, your institution, and your preferred email address. The body of your review should be styled according to the guidelines below. At the end of your review, please provide the table of contents, with page numbers in parentheses:

Table of Contents
Introduction (3–30)
1. Creating Social Memory through Reuse That Accentuates (31–78)
2. Perpetuating Social Memory through Reuse That Preserves (79–125)
3. Altering Social Memory through Reuse Meant to Be Invisible (126–75)
4. Upcycling and Athenian Social Memory over the Longue Durée (176–212)
Epilogue (213–18)

If you have chosen to participate in our author Q&A and write a final response, we will append the dialogue at the bottom of your review, above the table of contents.

Reviews should be no longer than ca. 3000 words, including questions to the author.


Style Guidelines

Grammar, punctuation, etc. should be styled according to The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).

Use any spelling system you prefer (British, American, Canadian, etc.).

Use the author’s name rather than the author’s initial or “A.”

Use the en-dash (–) to separate ranges of numbers, e.g., 139–45.

Spell out numbers one through one hundred, except in citations: ten kraters, 4,500 soldiers, pp. 5–17.

Use CE and BCE, without periods, rather than AD and BC or C.E. and B.C.E.

Please include translations of any passages not in English.

Full references to other secondary literature should be provided in footnotes.

When citing specific pages and notes in the reviewed work, please use "p." and "n.," and follow this format: "p. 78" or "p. 78, n. 5".

Form the possessive with 's except where names end in the -eez sound: Collins's, Psellos's, but Euripides', Thucydides'.

To form numerical ranges, refer to The Chicago Manual of Style 9.61 and these examples: 10–17, 100–105, 201–6, 211–16.


Citation Examples

Averil Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, 395­–700 AD, 2nd ed. (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2012).

Matthew P. Loar, Carolyn MacDonald, and Dan-el Padilla Peralta, eds., Rome, Empire of Plunder: The Dynamics of Cultural Appropriation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

Ann Steiner, “Public and Private: Links between Symposium and Syssition in Fifth-Century Athens,” Classical Antiquity 21, no. 2 (2002): 347–80.

Catherine H. Zuckert, “Practical Plato,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Political Thought, ed. Stephen Salkever (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 178–208, at 182.


For Graduate Students

Rhea Classical Reviews is proud to publish reviews by emerging scholars who are currently completing their graduate education. In recognition that not all graduate students have equal resources available to them, graduate student reviewers receive mentorship throughout the review process. If you are a graduate student interested in reviewing a book for Rhea, we ask that you identify yourself as such when you contact us, and our Chair of Graduate Mentorship (currently Dr. Dylan K. Rogers) will reach out to you with additional information.