On the 9th August, a workshop ran online that contained vigorous discussion about the best practice in revising academic and fictional work. These are the key points the workshop agreed upon:

Academic reviews:

1. should be balanced – neither all good or all bad. Unbalanced reviews give the impression of bias – that the reviewer was unable to be objective about the work for some reason. For this reason, the reviewer should disclose any relationship they have with the author, professionally and personally.
2. should highlight what is new, controversial or different about the research presented. This will highlight to the reader what the work is adding to the field and why they might be interested in purchasing the volume.
3. should concisely demonstrate the scholarly lineage of the scholarship – how the reviewed volume links with other literature in the field.
4. should indicate the level at which the work is pitched. The reader needs to have clear expectations about what technical level the work is written or if it is intended for a more general audience.
5. should provide some mention of the specialisation of the author(s). The reader will have a sense of how authoritative the work is likely to be based on the scholarly background of the author of the reviewed work. In addition, a footnote that provides similar information about the reviewer could be useful.

Fictional reviews:

In addition, for an edited volume, a few lines outlining the content of each chapter is important as chapter titles frequently do not clearly indicate the content of the material.

Reviews of fictional works dealing with the ancient world were also discussed. It was agreed that fictional reviews:

1. should be balanced, to avoid the impression of bias.
2. should highlight what makes the work stand-out. In the case of fiction, this would be an indication of how similar the narrative is to different styles, genres and authors.
3. should indicate the intention of the author in relation to historical accuracy. This means including an overview of the ancient sources that are used and how closely they are incorporated, and indicating if historical inaccuracies are distracting.
4. should provide an indication of what level the work is pitched for in terms of age. This is particularly important for those who may be reading the review looking for works suitable for their children.
5. should provide some mention of other works by the same author.

There was also some discussion of the need for trigger warnings in reviews, particularly for fictional work but potentially also for reviews of academic material. It was felt that further training in the area of trigger warning was needed, which would require consultation with undergraduate students as well as other colleagues. 

If you have a work that you would like to review for Arke, please email aimee.l.turner@gmail.com

Workshop participants

• Dr Aimee Turner, La Trobe University, Macquarie University and Federation University
• Lachlan Mutimer, Honours student at The University of Melbourne
• R.S. Davies, University of New England
• Lauren Murphy, La Trobe University
• Bronwen MacDonald, Stellenbosch University