Studia Antiqua at Ten Years Old

This issue follows the previous by a full year, thanks in large part to the birth of my daughter, Aryn, in December. As Studia Antiqua's sole editor, I was unable to finish the fall 2008 issue before the end of the semester, and the papers from that issue have been combined with papers from the spring 2009 issue. With me for this issue is Angela Chapman, who will replace me as editor in chief after I graduate in April and move on to a master of studies degree in Jewish studies at the University of Oxford. Angela is a junior in ancient Near Eastern studies. She is doing the Hebrew track, and a paper of hers can be found in

2011

Editor's Preface ix an art history submission and hope for much more diversity in the journal. Joshua J. Bodine, continuing his tradition of writing introductions to Hebrew Bible topics, has introduced us to the world of history and historiography in the Hebrew Bible, providing numerous references for further study. Also, Daniel McClellan offered the piece he presented at the 2010 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting concerning the Septuagint and Deuteronomy. Finally, E. Odin Yingling has written a short piece about the Acts of Peter. I am grateful to the departments who have donated funds in order to produce this journal. Their continued support makes this publishing venue possible. I am especially grateful to Dr. Dana M. Pike, who tolerates my countless demands, who reads so closely, and offers astute insights. He never gets enough credit for the immense work he does. Aside from his substantial academic contributions, he has served as a personal advisor, confidant, and listening ear to so many students over the years. He inherited the title of faculty advisor pro tempore to this journal and has gone above and beyond in assisting to make this a quality publication. I am also grateful to the Religious Studies Center, which houses the journal. The staff 's supervision has ensured that this journal will continue for years to come. Joany Pinegar makes the world go around. Devan Jensen has reviewed these pages and suggested numerous tweaks. Thanks go to my fellow editors at the Religious Studies Center for tolerating my incessant computer and other technical questions; special thanks to Jonathon R. Owen, Jeff Wade, and Jake Frandsen. I hope that this issue is worthy to be the tenth issue of this magnificent journal. After researching the history of this journal, I am humbled and grateful for those who have gone before me and provided this publication venue. I also hope that I am worthy to the task of serving as editor of this journal and that I have done a satisfactory job. Here's to another ten years of Studia Antiqua!

In The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Archaeological Record 12(4):11-13, 2012

My three-year term as Editor of American Antiquity ended at the SAA meetings in Memphis in April 2012. During the meetings, many people asked what it was like to be Editor. People didn’t ask about the statistics of the journal; rather, they were more curious about what I learned about writing, being a reviewer, dealing with reviews, and publishing, as well as what I learned about my colleagues. I realized that other members of the SAA also might be interested in these questions, and I have tried to answer them here briefly.

Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire / Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis, 96, 2018, p. 913-924, 2018, 2018

American Antiquity

, and Prudence M. Rice, followed by a question-and-answer period. Although the room was packed with students, many more who were not there could have benefited from the workshop. We feel, therefore, that our contribution to the workshop is appropriate for an "Editors' Corner." What follows is a summary of the editor's remarks prepared in conjunction with the managing editor. Communication is at the center of our professional responsibility within government, private, and academic settings. At the core of communication techniques available to us in this multimedia, high-tech age is publication in scholarly journals. Learning to communicate effectively through publication is an integral and critical part of the professionalization process in archaeology. The question, then, is not whether to publish, but when, what, how, and where to publish. All of these questions cannot be addressed here, but we would like to address a few topics of concern to young scholars as they begin or refine their responsibility to publish. First, we discuss the organization of the editorial office. Second, some practical steps to publishing in American Antiquity are offered. Third, we list a few of the major problems and pitfalls to avoid. How is the office organized? Working together with the editor at the University of Arizona are Dr. Teresita Majewski, managing editor and coordinator for Current Research; Barbara Montgomery, editorial assistant for production; and Drs. Axel Nielsen and Maria Nieves Zedeno, editorial assistants for Spanish Language. Other associate and assistant editors who assist in preparation of materials for the journal operate elsewhere, and largely independently, to carry out publication tasks related to specific sections of the journal. The manuscript-processing pathway for the journal is illustrated by tracking a manuscript submission from receipt to publication. Four copies and an original manuscript are received, logged in, and assigned a manuscript number according to whether the submission is an article, report, comment, or forum (see "Editor's Corner: American Antiquity and Space," American Antiquity 55: 449^50). The author is sent a postcard to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript. The editor selects four referees to get full coverage of all aspects of the subject treated in the manuscript (see "Editor's Corner: Peer Review at American Antiquity,'''' American Antiquity 55:665-666). The author of a paper may suggest potential reviewers or persons to avoid. We ask that complete addresses be provided for possible referees, but name only for those to avoid. The manuscript is then filed until the reviewers return their evaluations. An attempt has been made to monitor slow reviewers, but the office is overloaded, especially this past year when the production process "went electronic." We have yet to achieve the desired turnaround time for getting an initial decision back to an author. Editorial decisions on a manuscript are made on the basis of the editor's reading of the paper, the referees' comments, and the editor's evaluation of the referees' comments. Most commonly, the editor encourages an author to revise and resubmit. At this stage the managing editor also provides input on matters of style and formatting. The revise-and-resubmit process continues until the author and the editor are in agreement that the best publishable paper has been crafted, at which time the manuscript is turned over to the managing editor to put into production.

Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, 2018

2012

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].