Classical Review has recently expanded its standard work of publishing reviews and notices of single books to include also longer pieces covering more – and more varied – material. We have previously shared ideas about what makes a good book review and on our work in reviewing digital projects. Here we shed light on how to craft longer review articles and profiles.

Both formats offer two major advantages. Firstly, they allow reviewers the space and opportunity to delve into relevant topics in more detail and to explore emerging trends in scholarship more deeply than would be possible by writing a single review. Secondly, these longer pieces may be published open access where the reviewer’s institution has an open access publishing agreement with Cambridge. We find that open access attracts a much larger readership and so affords more visibility for the reviewer and the works reviewed.

Review Articles

A review article bundles three or more books on the same topic. The length will depend on the number and type of books assigned, but they are typically at least 3,500 words, which gives a good amount of scope to both discuss the books and develop observations on their contributions to current developments in a disciplinary field.

The best examples of this format weave the themes and arguments of the books under review together, rather than just treating each book separately. The reviewer can then discuss more broadly the themes and issues that emerge from the books as a whole, and use these as illustrations to comment on the evolution of the field. Alyson Roy’s recent review article on ancient spolia does an exceptional job of integrating the different books into a coherent piece.

As with book reviews, review articles should be focused on the topics and scholarly contribution of the books under review. Reviewers should refrain from listing minor errors (e.g. copyediting or spelling mistakes) and from commenting on the author’s personal status (e.g. political views).

Profiles

When we commission Profiles, we do not assign the reviewer a set list of works to be reviewed. Rather, we ask authors to examine the state of the art of a subfield over the last five to ten years. Reviewers then have free rein within this remit to highlight contributions from books, journal articles, conferences, digital initiatives, and research groups and networks.

These profiles should spotlight recent discoveries, developments and initiatives as well as forecast emerging trends in the field. They will ideally cover research across major academic languages. We typically publish profiles of between 3,000–6,000 words in length; thus we expect concise discussions that carefully balance breadth and depth of coverage.

Amongst the great recent profiles we have published, are Emma-Jayne Graham’s on ‘Material and Experiential Religion’, and Jonathan Davies’s on ‘Jewish Literature of the Hellenistic and Roman Period’.

We have found that these profiles, by offering an expert, accessible overview of a subfield that is right up to date, provide immense value to our all our readers, and in particular to students, early career and interdisciplinary scholars who are getting acquainted with that field.

Writing review articles and profiles is a highly rewarding – and challenging – endeavour. They allow scholars to engage more broadly with recent publications and to offer their expert insight into recent disciplinary developments and typically attract more attention than standard book reviews.

If you would like to try your hand at writing one, we would love to hear from you! You can contact us at [email protected].