JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement
JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.
Peer Review Policy
Submissions to the American Journal of Philology (AJP) are expected to be original work and not to be under review elsewhere while they are being reviewed by AJP.
Submissions come to the editor alone, who looks over the mss to make sure that it conforms to AJP guidelines. If a submission is obviously—and I stress this word—out of line with these or with the standard of intellectual significance that we expect, then the editor will inform the author that the submission does not conform to our guidelines and/or that it does not meet our scholarly standards. This would be a very obvious case, however, such as an essay by a student that had not been vetted by a professional scholar, that lacked engagement with the subject literature, and so forth. If the mss were less obviously out of conformity with our guidelines, or if it did not fall egregiously short of the journal’s scholarly standards, the editor would normally consult one of the associate editors as to whether it seemed worthwhile to work with the author to bring the submission up to standards. Papers of both kinds (obviously unsuitable and arguably so) are sent back to authors without formal peer review.
Type of review
The policy at AJP is that the editor knows the identity of the author, who shares this information with the associate editor who handles the logistics of the peer review process. That means that the associate editor knows the identity of the author and of the peer reviewers, while the editor knows the identity of the author but not of the peer reviewers until they file their reports, at which time the associate editor informs the editor who the peer reviewers are. We use two peer reviewers, unless their opinions are divided, in which case we go to a third. When all of the reports are gathered, the associate editor makes a judgment whether to accept the paper, reject it, or continue to work with the author by inviting him or her to revise and resubmit the paper. The associate editor writes a response to the author, sends it to the editor for discussion, and the editor has the final say on how to proceed. Generally, the editor takes the associate editor’s advice, although there is some movement between adjacent categories (mostly from revise and resubmit to reject, or vice versa). If an author agrees to revise and resubmit, further vetting might be done by the editors alone; or, one or more readers might be asked to look at the revised paper and declare whether their reservations have been adequately addressed; or one or more new readers might be recruited, especially if one or more of the original readers becomes unavailable for any reason.
Criteria for review
Apart from format (mss should contain essays of 20–30 pp., double-spaced, 12-pt. Times or similar, 8.5 x 11 or A4 paper, plus notes and bibliography), we expect work that is sufficiently original and innovative as to make an independent contribution to the study of Greek and Roman antiquity and either to inaugurate a new discussion of some aspect of the subject or else to contribute to an existing discussion to move it forward in some important way.
Type of revisions process
Generally the author is asked to act on any specific recommendations made by the peer reviewers and on any additional recommendations made by the editors.
Review process once revised
Normally this is in the hands of the editors. If the peer reviewers are consulted, as discussed above, then the associate editor remains involved; otherwise the editor is in charge of the mss from this point onwards.
The peer review process typically takes three or four months; though it can take longer, we work to prevent delays. Once an article is accepted, at this point it should be published within a year.
Type of review for informal pieces
This depends on the nature of the piece. In general, it is up to the editor to decide whether to accept or commission informal pieces and whether or how to involve the associate editors and other members of the editorial board. Our preference is to be consultative, without wishing to burden the associate editors.