The Ancient History Bulletin was born in Calgary in 1987, as a result of the efforts of Brian M. Lavelle, John Vanderspoel and Waldemar Heckel, and with the trust and support of our generous original subscribers, most of whom are still contributing to the journal’s success.
After the publication of Volume 26, AHB moved to St. Olaf College and shifted to Open Access Status (see policy statement, below). Volume 27 (2013) is the first to have been produced under the new editorial regime.
Timothy Howe (St. Olaf College), Senior Editor
Joseph Roisman (Colby College), Reviews Editor
Edward Anson (University of Arkansas, Little Rock)
Michael Fronda (McGill University)
David Hollander (Iowa State University)
Sabine Müller (Marburg Universität), European Editor
John Vanderspoel (University of Calgary)
Pat Wheatley (Otago University), Australasian Editor
Elizabeth Baynham (University of Newcastle)
Hugh Bowden (Kings College, London)
Franca Landucci Gattinoni (Università Cattolica, Milan)
Alexander Meeus (Mannheim University)
Kurt Raaflaub (Brown University)
P.J. Rhodes (Durham University)
Robert Rollinger (Universität Innsbruck)
Victor Alonso Troncoso (Universidade da Coruña)
Open Access Policy
AHB is a Green Open Access Journal. 24 months after publication articles are freely accessible in an institutional or subject archive or some other document repository selected by the authors.
Peer Review Policy
Following submission, an article is reviewed as follows: The Senior Editor assesses the article and decides whether it should be declined immediately or sent for double-blind peer-review by specialist academic referees. If the article is not declined immediately, it will be sent to two specialist referees. Following receipt of the referees’ reports, the article is reassessed by the Senior Editor. At this stage, the article may be: (a) accepted subject to minor revisions, (b) returned for major revisions ahead of resubmission and re-review, if the editor believes that the article has merits and would benefit AHB but has problems which mean that it is not yet ready for publication, or (c) declined. Author(s) will be sent the referees’ reports, whether the article is accepted or not. Revised versions of articles accepted subject to minor revisions or returned for major revisions ahead of resubmission must address all the issues raised in the initial report and authors must provide explanations for any suggested revisions they feel unable to undertake.
There will be only one opportunity for a re‐review in the case of revisions being requested.
Articles that have been subject to major revisions will usually be sent to referees for re-evaluation.
The Senior Editor aims to complete the initial review of an article within three months of submission. However, please be aware that the refereeing process relies on extremely busy academics and that it is not always possible to adhere to this timetable.
Once an article has been accepted the author(s) should submit the final text, tables and print‐quality figures to the Senior Editor who will pass on the material to the Area Editor. Where required, authors will receive notification of “acceptance” for Open Access purposes at this stage. A first proof will be sent, as a pdf file. This will consist of the copy‐edited text, followed by any figures and tables. Queries from the Area Editor will be embedded within the file and highlighted using AdobeReaderTM. At this stage, authors are expected not to request any changes to the text, tables or figures aside from those necessitated in response to queries from the Area Editor.
Authors are responsible for the completeness and accuracy of proof corrections. A final proof will then be prepared with any figures and tables placed within the article. Authors will be sent a copy as a pdf file but are expected not to request any changes aside from any final spelling or grammatical corrections, or corrections of fact.
The article will then be published, initially on AHB’s 24-month embargoed platform (at which point authors will be sent the pdf free of charge to provide offprints).
Copyright and Reproduction Policy
Authors publishing in the Ancient History Bulletin will retain copyright to their work.
Authors are also asked, should the article be accepted for publication in the Ancient History Bulletin, to confirm that the article is an original work and is in no way whatever an infringement of any existing copyright, and that it contains nothing libelous. If an article includes textual or illustrative material not in the author’s copyright and not covered by fair use/fair dealing, permission must be obtained by the author from the relevant copyright owner for the non‐exclusive right to reproduce the material worldwide in all forms and media, including electronic publication. The author shall be held responsible for paying any fees required as a condition for obtaining such permission. Authors should initially seek the permission of the publisher to reproduce copyrighted material that has been published. For unpublished material, authors should seek permission of the owners, whether individuals or institutions. Please note that permission should also be sought, from the institution in which the original is held, to publish an author’s personal photographs of material held in the collections of museums, libraries, etc. The relevant permission correspondence should be submitted by the author to the Senior Editor when first proofs are returned.
Statement of Research and Publication Ethics
– The Editors of the Ancient History Bulletin take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.
– AHB does not encourage research misconduct of any kind, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
– The Editors of AHB shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others.
– In the event that the Editorial Board of AHB are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct the allegations will be examined by a misconduct subcommittee composed of no less than 3 editors selected by the Senior Editor (to correct for any possible conflict of interest) to determine their accuracy and suggest next steps as follows: (1) The misconduct subcommittee shall take all allegations and suspicions of misconduct seriously, but will recognize that they do not usually have either the legal legitimacy or the means to conduct investigations into serious cases. (2) If the subcommittee is presented with convincing evidence—perhaps by reviewers—of serious misconduct, the subcommittee shall confidentially seek expert advice. (3) If the experts find no evidence of misconduct, the subcommittee shall make a recommendation to the Senior Editor regarding dismissal of the charges or further investigation.
– If the misconduct subcommittee has found evidence of research misconduct sanctions may be applied separately or combined. The following are ranked in approximate order of severity: (1) A letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles. (2) A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct. (3) A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body. (4) Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism. (5) An editorial giving full details of the misconduct. (6) Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period. (7) Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature.
– In the event of typographical, editing or imaging errors, AHB shall publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.