|Indices for BMERR Reviews|
|By Title||By Reviewer||By Author||By Date of Review||By Subject Area|
|BMERR Home Page||Editorial Staff||Items for Review||About this document|
Reviews may be of any length up to 2500 words. Please do not assume that any review must be that long.
If possible, reviews should be submitted either as email messages or as attachments to email messages. Attachments may be in any common word processor format. If necessary, reviews may be submitted on disk in any common word processing format.
All reviews will begin with the following information: The name of the site (CD), a description of the type of the site (CD), names of author(s) and creator(s) with indications of responsibility, site sponsor or CD publisher, audience, peer review issues, publication date, reviewer(s), and review date.
The description should indicate the general cultural sphere (Greek, Roman, Etruscan, Near East, Egypt) and the time period (by term: Neolithic, Bronze Age, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Late Antique). It may be necessary to indicate a time range by saying, for instance, Archaic through Hellenistic. In addition, the description should indicate for Web sites whether the site is an informational site or a site with links to others (or both). We think that distinction is important, since we will be reviewing sites that are only compilations of others; such sites are very different from sites that present unique materials.
Site sponsor may seem an odd category. In some cases, it will be simply the university where the server is. More complex relationships, however, may exist. For CDs, this is the publisher.
Audience is defined by the reviewer. In general, we want to make it clear that sites or CDs are suited best for scholars, students, the general public or some combination of those groups. On occasion, it may appear that the site or CD has defined its audience in one way but the reviewer sees things differently. Should that occur, it should be noted here. We are not intending to require a rigid division of sites with this information; so more complex discussion of the appropriate audience is welcome.
Peer review is actually a more complex category, including availability and permanence. The point here is to make clear whether there is any peer review process, what processes (if any) are in place to be sure the information will remain available (in the case of Web sites, some indication about who controls continued access, for instance; this does not apply to CDs, since the publisher is responsible), and whether or not the information (not the particular iteration but the information that underlies it) will be permanently retained somewhere.
Along with each reviewer's name there should be both a physical and an email address.
Sample reviews were written by members of the Editorial Board in the summer of 1998. Reviewers may want to look at those reviews to get a better idea of our desires conerning the standard information to be included:
For additional information, please contact the Editor, Harrison Eiteljorg, II, at email@example.com.
About this document: