About Us
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.
ISSN 0835-3638
Editorial Board:
Timothy Howe (St. Olaf College), Senior Editor
Conor Whatley (University of Winnipeg), Reviews Editor
Edward Anson (University of Arkansas, Little Rock)
Catalina Balmaceda (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), South American Editor
Monica D’Agostini (Università degli studi di Bergamo), European Editor
Andrea Gatzke (SUNY, New Paltz)
Alex McAuley (Cardiff University), UK Editor
Sabine Müller (Marburg Universität), European Editor
Nandini Pandey (Johns Hopkins University)
John Vanderspoel (University of Calgary)
Pat Wheatley (University of Western Australia), Australasian Editor
Charlotte Dunn (Otago University), Assistant Editor
Open Access Policy
AHB is a Green Open Access Journal that produces content under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 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.
Publication Process
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 according to the terms laid out by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
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.
Ethical Expectations:
A) Editors’ responsibilities:
- To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
- To handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
- To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Society where appropriate.To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
B) Reviewers’ responsibilities:
- To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner.
- To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
- To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
- To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
C) Authors’ responsibilities:
- To maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. Where appropriate and where allowed by employer, funding body and others who might have an interest, to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others.
- To confirm/assert that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content.
- To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources.
- To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
- Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g. WMA Declaration of Helsinki, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, EU Directive on Use of Animals) and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy.
- To declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest (real or apparent) that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process).
- To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior
AHB does not encourage research misconduct of any kind, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. The Editors of the Ancient History Bulletin take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.
Identification of unethical behavior:
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.
- Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
- Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
- Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
Investigation:
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) Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
(2) 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.
(3) The misconduct subcommittee shall determine the degree of misconduct (minor or serious) and inform the Senior Editor of their conclusions.
(4) If the subcommittee is presented with convincing evidence—perhaps by reviewers—of serious misconduct, the subcommittee shall confidentially seek expert advice.
(5) If the experts find no evidence of serious misconduct, the subcommittee shall make a recommendation to the Senior Editor regarding dismissal of the charges or further investigation.
Minor breaches:
Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
Serious breaches:
Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The Senior editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction):
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.