Reviewing books is a primary responsibility of the AHR. The editors seek to be as comprehensive as possible, but we cannot review every book published in history and kindred disciplines. Our goal is to be as fair and thorough as we can in surveying and reporting on the most important contemporary historical scholarship. We realize that decisions about which books to review are inevitably judgments about what we consider to be the leading scholarship on the past. We also recognize that notions of importance across disciplines are inherently subjective and constantly changing. Furthermore, we know the significance to our colleagues of being reviewed and reviewing in this journal. However, as editors of a journal devoted to all fields of history, we have a responsibility to determine which books are of relevance to the discipline as a whole. Toward that end, we consider reviews a vital part of conversations about history, to which we want to include as many significant voices across the boundaries of specialized fields as possible. And we periodically reevaluate our procedures to ensure that our decision-making process is in accord with our best understanding of the needs and interests of the professional historians who are our primary audience.

As a result of such a reevaluation, we have decided that digital publication has become a critical and increasingly significant medium for understanding the past and thus electronic books warrant review in this journal As with other books, the editors' primary responsibility is to identify and review the most important works of historical scholarship being produced in the new medium. Consequently, we will apply the same general standards to the review of electronic books as we do to ones published in print.

Book reviewing in the AHR also operates under particular constraints. The sheer volume of books is one determinant in the reviewing process. At present, the AHR receives over 3,500 books a year; we have the resources to publish about 1,000 reviews each year or approximately 200 per issue. Equally important, the books we receive are not evenly distributed among the discipline's fields. Far more books are sent to us about the United States than about any other subject. General works in history and studies of modern Europe are the next most numerous, followed by volumes analyzing Asian, Medieval, Ancient, Latin American, and African history. Though the distribution of books by field in many ways simply represents the realities of historical publication, we are trying to address the submission deficiencies in certain fields by actively soliciting books from publishers that normally do not send us copies. The result, we hope, will be greater coverage of Asian, Latin American, and African history; success, however, will also increase our work load and the demands for space on our pages. In addition to the number and distribution of books, there are staff constraints on book reviewing. The book reviews are managed by an assistant editor, a staff of seven graduate students, and a group of specialist consultants. They strain to keep up with the flow of books and to apply uniform standards across the many fields of historical inquiry.

The AHR's book reviewing procedures are designed to fulfill our goals within these constraints. The most important decision we make is whether to commission a review of a book or to list it at the back of a volume with other books not reviewed. We make that determination by deciding whether or not a particular book fits one or more of the following criteria: generally, a reviewed book should be based on primary research, grounded in the historiography of its subject, employ a significant methodological technique, or, if written from the perspective of another discipline, inform historical discussions on an important topic. We do on occasion review particularly important works of synthesis.

In addition, the editors recognize the distinctive nature of electronic publication as a medium of historical interpretation. In particular, we understand that the medium warrants a distinct kind of evaluation because it establishes a new and consequential relationship between the development of a historical argument and the choices of technology used to present it. However, despite our recognition of the distinctiveness of electronic books, AHR reviews are intended to be works of scholarly analysis that evaluate the historical merits of a book rather than its technological sophistication. They must focus primarily on the book's contribution to our understanding of history and its effectiveness in communicating its ideas and arguments.

There are also categories of books that we simply do not have the space to review. These include compilations of documents and bibliographies, collections of personal and state papers, second editions and reprints, collections of previously published essays, and textbooks, which we review only in exceptional cases. Perhaps the most troublesome issue for us is raised by collections of essays. Although edited collections of essays are difficult to review—because they are often composed of disparate essays that make effective reviews difficult—the editors of the AHR recognize that some anthologies can be critical sources of important new scholarship. After reevaluating the existing guidelines, therefore, the editors of the AHR have modified the book review guidelines. Henceforth, the editors will review only those collections that have a consistent and coherent approach throughout the essays. The focus could be substantive or methodological. The intent is to provide reviewers with books in which they can assess a common attempt to look at something from a variety of angles and not simply a set of disparate essays tied loosely under a shared title. Collections will be reviewed only when they come under one of two categories. First, if the collection's contributions are not simply gathered together by virtue of being about the same topic but are in fact focused around a particular historical development or argument or analytical move that makes the collection as a whole have a historiographical significance. Second, if the collection is explicitly comparative and is intended to bring together similar kinds of scholarship bearing on one historical or theoretical question, from widely disparate historical contexts. Books not reviewed are listed in sections in each volume for collected essays, documents and bibliographies, and other books received. In all of these categories, decisions are made on a book-by-book basis.

Once a book has been slated for review, a reviewer is selected from our extensive files of scholars active in the various fields of history and related disciplines. To maintain the integrity and quality of its reviews, the AHR has long followed a set of established standards for reviewers. The primary qualification is the publication of one major monograph, although we do occasionally use as reviewers persons in fields in which articles are the principal vehicle for presenting their work and who have published at least three major articles in significant journals. Our intent is to ensure that reviewers have experienced the peer-review process themselves and understand the production of a historical monograph. We also generally require that reviewers have earned a Ph.D. or its equivalent such as a J.D. or Th.D. We exclude from consideration persons acknowledged by the author or those who have assisted in the publication of a book in some fashion. And in selecting reviewers for electronic books, we do not ask those whose primary qualification is scholarship in information technology because our central concern is to select reviewers who can ask the kinds of questions that historians ought to ask in evaluating any interpretation of the past. At present, there are about 9,000 reviewers in our files. They are listed in a computerized data bank containing information on their degrees, publications, fields of expertise, foreign languages, and current employment and address. These files are constantly updated by the AHR staff, and we periodically solicit information from new reviewers. Membership in the AHA is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of selection as a reviewer. In that regard, it is important to note also that the fact that a person's name is in our reviewer file does not ensure that she or he will be asked to review for the AHR. Invitations to review are based on staff judgments about the appropriate match between book and reviewer.

Finally, AHR staff members determine the length of a review and, once it has been turned in, edit it for style. We expect reviewers to write thoughtful and engaging critiques that explain the basic argument of a book, assess its strengths and weaknesses, and place the book in its historiographical context. And we would like them to do so in a way that addresses readers outside the bounds of their particular specialty. We do not dictate the content of reviews, but we do delete passages that are, in our judgment, ad hominem attacks on an author. These include unsubstantiated or libelous allegations of plagiarism. However, we also accept the responsibility to publish responsible charges of misappropriated scholarship. Such claims must be documented with examples of parallel texts or of instances of the unattributed use of other scholars' ideas and arguments. Such judgments are made in accordance with our fundamental responsibility to promote the freest possible discussion of the articles and reviews published in the AHR and our responsibility to uphold the American Historical Association's Standards of Professional Conduct, which require all historians to maintain "the highest standards of intellectual integrity" and to evaluate "the honesty and reliability with which the historian uses primary and secondary source material." (Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct, 2002 Edition, American Historical Association, p. 12). Reviews range in size from 500 to 1,200 words; the average review is about 800 words. The editors recognize the difficulties of writing a carefully constructed yet instructive review in so few words. But we think the virtues of presenting an informed and informative survey of leading scholarship in as many fields of historical inquiry as possible outweighs the difficulties of writing the reviews. Indeed, we believe that crafting such reviews is a major, if often underestimated, contribution that countless numbers of our colleagues make to the discipline each year. We also try to overcome the inherent limits of the small reviews by regularly publishing review essays on a set of books about a particular topic. These essays are intended to be broad analyses of critical issues in the discipline. Some of them are submitted directly to us, others are specifically commissioned by us. The review essays range from 5,000 to 8,000 words.

These procedures and policies grow out of the editors' conviction that book reviews are vital to the life of the historical profession. We are convinced that reviews are a crucial element in the continuing dialogue within our discipline and between history and other disciplines. We not only devote over half our pages to them, we also believe that overseeing their production and dissemination is one of our major contributions to historical scholarship.

For a similar statement about the importance of book reviews, see Steven M. Stowe, "Thinking about Reviews," Journal of American History 78 (September 1991): 591–95.

© American Historical Association