The Journal Of Roman Studies

---
name: the-journal-of-roman-studies
description: Use when targeting The Journal of Roman Studies (JRS) or deciding whether a Roman history, archaeology, epigraphy, literature, or material-culture manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's Roman-world fit, the primary-evidence argument bar, epigraphic/archaeological and original-language expectations, classics house style and anonymization norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# The Journal of Roman Studies (the-journal-of-roman-studies)

## Journal positioning

The Journal of Roman Studies, published by Cambridge University Press for the Society for
the Promotion of Roman Studies, is the leading journal for the study of the Roman world —
its history, archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, literature, art, and material culture
from the early Republic through Late Antiquity. Its defining expectation is an **argument
built directly on primary evidence** — texts, inscriptions, coins, excavated material, or
documents — that advances understanding of Roman society, institutions, culture, or its
sources, with significance legible across the field of Roman studies rather than to one
narrow specialism. A descriptive catalogue with no argument, or a thesis floating above its
evidence, is a poor fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** aid. It
does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check
the live Journal of Roman Studies author instructions.

## When to trigger

- The author names The Journal of Roman Studies for a Roman history, archaeology, epigraphy, or literature manuscript and wants a fit/framing check.
- A primarily descriptive or local study must be re-framed into an evidence-driven argument with field-wide significance.
- The author is choosing between JRS and a Greek/Latin philology venue or a specialist archaeology/epigraphy journal.
- The author needs JRS's primary-evidence bar and desk-reject heuristics.

## Scope & topic fit

- Roman history across the Republic, Empire, and Late Antiquity: politics, institutions, economy, society, religion, law, and administration.
- Epigraphy and documentary evidence — new readings, re-editions, or arguments built on inscriptions and texts on stone, bronze, or papyrus.
- Roman archaeology and material culture: excavation, landscape, urbanism, and objects read for historical argument.
- Numismatics and art when integrated into a historical or cultural argument.
- Latin (and relevant Greek) literature of the Roman world read for its historical and cultural import.
- Source criticism and the interpretation of the ancient evidence underpinning Roman studies.

## Method & evidence bar

- The contribution is an **original argument grounded in primary evidence**; the inscription, text, object, or site does load-bearing work, not illustration.
- Command of the primary sources is demonstrated, including the original languages (Latin/Greek) where the argument depends on them.
- Epigraphic, archaeological, and numismatic evidence is handled to disciplinary standards — accurate readings, dating, provenance, and method.
- The argument is situated in current Roman-studies scholarship and names what it changes about our understanding.
- Interpretation is controlled by the evidence and alert to its limits, gaps, and the problems of the source tradition.
- Significance reaches across Roman studies, not only a single site, dossier, or sub-specialism.

## Structure & house style

- Scholarly article (or shorter contribution) advancing an evidence-based argument; re-check current categories and length expectations on the live guide.
- Latin and Greek are quoted in the original with translations per policy; inscriptions and documents are presented per epigraphic conventions.
- Citation, ancient-source abbreviations, and references follow the journal's classics/ancient-history conventions — re-check the current guide.
- Footnotes carry sources, apparatus, and scholarly qualification.
- Double-blind/anonymous review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Figures, plates, maps, and site illustrations require permissions and meet the journal's specifications — often integral to the argument.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the CUP / Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies anchors, then cite the current JRS page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Journal of Roman Studies submission guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check submission categories, length expectations, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm the classics/ancient-history citation style, source abbreviations, and epigraphic/Latin-Greek quotation and translation conventions.
- Confirm anonymization for anonymous review.
- Re-check figure/plate/map permissions and specifications, and prior-presentation/preprint and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] The argument is built directly on primary evidence that does load-bearing work, not illustration.
- [ ] Command of the sources — including Latin/Greek where the argument depends on them — is demonstrated.
- [ ] Epigraphic, archaeological, or numismatic evidence is handled to disciplinary standards (readings, dating, provenance).
- [ ] The essay is situated in current Roman-studies scholarship and names what it changes.
- [ ] Interpretation is controlled by the evidence and alert to the limits of the source tradition.
- [ ] The manuscript is anonymized, follows the journal's style and abbreviations, and has figure/plate permissions in hand.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A descriptive catalogue or site report with no historical argument.
- A thesis floating above its evidence, or evidence handled below disciplinary standards (dating, readings, provenance).
- Epigraphic or material claims with inaccurate readings or unaddressed provenance problems.
- Significance confined to one site or dossier with no stake for Roman studies broadly.
- No engagement with current scholarship, or reliance on translations where the sources demand original-language command.
- Wrong venue: a purely philological Greek/Latin textual argument better served elsewhere.

## Re-routing decision

- Greek or Latin textual criticism or close literary-philological interpretation → `the-classical-quarterly`.
- Argument whose center of gravity is general historical method or a non-Roman period → `the-american-historical-review`.
- Reception of Rome in later literature with a broad literary stake → `pmla` or `comparative-literature`.
- Interdisciplinary theory of the image or material culture beyond Roman studies → `october` or `critical-inquiry`.
- Highly specialized epigraphy, numismatics, or single-site archaeology → a dedicated specialist journal.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] The Journal of Roman Studies
[Field/period] <history / archaeology / epigraphy / literature; Republic / Empire / Late Antiquity>
[Argument] <the evidence-based claim in one line — what it changes about the Roman world>
[Evidence basis] <does the handling of texts/inscriptions/material clear JRS's primary-evidence bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <category / length / classics style + abbreviations / anonymization / figure permissions / translation>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```