Book Reviews

Deciding What to Review | Criteria | Applying the Criteria | Review Format

Deciding What to Review

Surveys of readers of the Journal of American History indicate that the book reviews are the most read section of the journal. They represent our most visible commitment to being a journal of record that enables readers to keep abreast of what is produced in the field of American history. Because the section is so central, from time to time the Journal of American History Editorial Board and staff assess our procedures and report them to readers in the hope of encouraging feedback about how we can better meet readers' needs. The following statement first outlines the criteria that guide our selection of works to review and then discusses their application to categories of books (and works in other media) that present particular problems.

Our criteria are evolving and flexible. We expect that they will change as historical publishing and the interests of historians change. We also expect that the Journal's book review editor (the associate editor) will use discretion in applying the criteria, at times assigning different weights to different criteria or following an informed hunch that a book outside our usual purview deserves review in the Journal. In doing so she will be inspired by an editorial board member's advice that "there is no substitute for the good judgment of a book review editor . . . who is able to exercise imagination and take occasional risks to keep the readers apprised of unusually interesting and unconventional contributions." In evaluating a work that falls at the edge of our field of interest, the book review editor will ask two questions: How many of our criteria does it meet? How well does it meet them? A book is more likely to be reviewed if it meets several criteria or if it fulfills one of them to spectacular effect.

[Top]

Criteria

American Content

Editorial board members overwhelmingly agree that the JAH should devote its efforts to reviewing books concerned explicitly or implicitly with the United States. Many provocative works of potential interest to readers as professional historians are outside the core responsibility of the Journal. As a result of efforts by the JAH to internationalize (most concretely by listing and reviewing scholarship of interest to historians of the United States that is produced abroad), we have broadened our working definition of "American" history. That definition covers works addressing events or developments that begin, develop, or end in the United States (or areas that became part of it). The Journal also defines American history to include comparative topics and the study of geographic and social borderlands where people, ideas, and institutions from the United States interact with those from elsewhere, creating new possibilities and patterns. JAH Editorial Board members welcome occasional reviews of works that are not self-evidently on American topics if the reviewers of such works demonstrate the books' connection with United States history or their usefulness to historians of the United States (for example, in their theory, method, or consideration of topics and themes of importance in United States history, such as state making or immigration).

Historical Perspective

Board members want the JAH to review books with a historical perspective. We define "history" as concerned (a) with the past and/or (b) with issues of change and continuity over time. We avowedly include in our conception of history works that deal with recent events and with a range of human activities (including, for example, law, sport, religion, and art) if they are approached historically, that is, in relation to their time ("pastness") or to development in time (change and continuity).

Broad Significance

Board members almost unanimously want the JAH to avoid reviewing books that are "narrow." Often narrowness seems to mean an antiquarian outlook, concerned to commemorate or celebrate some moment, person, or institution without either placing it in a historical context ("pastness"), connecting it with development in time (change and continuity), or relating it to ongoing discussions among historians (scholarly awareness). No topic is per se narrow (a study of the life of one obscure eighteenth-century midwife sounds rather limited, but look what Laurel Thatcher Ulrich made of it). The treatment of a subject, the amount of self-conscious contextualization and reference to ways of analyzing the past, may confer either narrowness or broad significance.

Originality

Board members believe the JAH should concentrate on reviewing works of original scholarship. They are particularly concerned about interpretive originality. They want us to keep readers informed about what is "new" and "cutting edge." (Indeed, they use the same language to describe the articles they want to see in the JAH, even though there is evidence that the most remembered and most used of our articles have appeared in round tables--such as the one on the controversy over the canceled Smithsonian Institution exhibition featuring the Enola Gay--or special issues. Rather than offering the newest scholarship, round tables and special issues have often distilled existing scholarship and related it to issues of broad cultural concern.) For this reason they expect most of the books we review to be scholarly monographs, the main vehicle for the dissemination of original research and reflection in the field of American history.

Their advice, which has shaped Journal practice, is to be somewhat selective in reviewing works that are of service to scholarship, notably reference works, but that do not emphasize originality. Major edited collections of primary sources promise more originality in the discovery, assembling, and analysis of documents and thus the JAH makes more commitment to reviewing them.

Scholarship

Board members believe that most of the books reviewed in the JAH should conform to core traditions of scholarship in the discipline of history--research in primary sources, awareness of the historiography, engagement with cutting-edge issues. Most value the scholarly apparatus of notes and bibliography as a sign of faithfulness to disciplinary traditions. One board member saw the apparatus as "important in almost all cases" and another as "essential. A no-footnotes, no-review policy would miss on important books once in a blue moon, but not often." But others felt such a requirement was "too narrow" and warned against applying it rigidly. They want the JAH to review syntheses and extended essays by major historical thinkers whether or not they are packaged with scholarly paraphernalia.

[Top]

Applying the Criteria

The discussion below emphasizes books, but it also applies to works in other media, such as microforms, CD-ROMs, and, potentially, Web sites. For a time the JAH attempted to separate reviews of such works from book reviews, notably, through an annual section devoted to microforms. We have decided to eliminate that separate section and one for reference works and instead to sort works into two categories those that will be reviewed and those that will be listed in the "Recent Scholarship" section. (On our approach to selecting works to be listed in "Recent Scholarship," see the introduction to that section in the March 1997 JAH.)

The JAH staff applies the criteria for review within a context defined by the increasing volume of published works on American history, an apparent growth in the share of history books emanating from commercial presses, widening interdisciplinary interests among our readers, and our budget from the Organization of American Historians. We have the funds to review approximately 630 books each year. No other Journal reviews so many books on American history. (The American Historical Review, for example, now reviews approximately 350 books on American history each year.)

About most of the books we review there is little disagreement. They present original scholarship about the history of the United States. Whether they are monographs or works of synthesis or interpretation, books fulfilling the criteria outlined above (and published in the United States) can be identified with little soul-searching. We aim, not to select from among them, but to "cover" all such books.

But we review books of other sorts selectively. For example, our international contributing editors advise us which of the books on United States history, broadly defined, published in their home countries merit review in the JAH. The bar is set higher for books of the kinds listed below, and in deciding which to review, we look for signs of exceptional quality and significance.

Reference Books

Each year we aim to select for review, among the many reference works published (whether books or CD-ROMs), those of greatest potential interest to historians of the United States. Two contributing editors for CD-ROMs now alert us to works in that medium and advise us on which to list in "Recent Scholarship" and which to review. Reviews appear in the book review section.

Board members do not want to see reviews of traditional scholarly works sacrificed so that the JAH can review reference works. They want a high threshold for such works, judging them, it seems, less likely than works in other genres to be original or significant. They suggest as criteria for reviewing a reference book a price that makes it reasonable for individuals to buy a work for their own use, the quality of the entries, and topics and scope of broad interest to historians of the United States. In the same vein, John Buenker, formerly our contributing editor for reference works, urged us to be guided by "the importance of the subject matter, the overall quality of the work itself, and its usefulness for practicing historians and students of history." Following Buenker's advice, the Journal's editors look for those reference works that "best serve" scholars and students and those that are "clearly products of scholarly discipline and imagination"--measures akin to those listed above for historical works in general.

To show how reference works may contribute to the discussion in specialized fields, we have experimented with joint reviews that evaluate a reference work along with a monograph on a related topic. (For example, in the December 1997 JAH an annotated bibliography of works on lynching was reviewed together with a collection of essays on lynching.)

Reference works that are not reviewed will be listed in the "Recent Scholarship" section of the JAH under the appropriate subject categories.

Edited Collections of Primary Sources

Board members endorse our present policy of reviewing the first volumes of ambitious edited multivolume collections of sources (for example, The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr.) and subsequent volumes that mark major changes of editorial policy. Other volumes in such collections are ordinarily listed in the "Recent Scholarship" section of the JAH as are most source collections. We review some briefer source collections that are notable for the originality of topic or arrangement, the significance of the subject matter, or the quality of the scholarship devoted to identifying and explicating the documents.

The guidelines for reviewing or listing are the same for source collections available as microforms or CD-ROMs or in other electronic media.

Memoirs, Journalism, and Contributions to Policy Debates

Books that lack the apparatus and outlook of scholarship--works of journalism or polemic, memoirs, and essays--may be of interest to our readers because they raise important questions about the American past and the historical phenomena of change and continuity in American society. Recognizing this, the JAH has for at least the last decade cast a wide net for books about recent and current events, including those without scholarly pretensions. Members of the editorial board favor reviewing some nonscholarly books, but only if their usefulness to our readers is great. One wrote that to be selected for review, such a book "should offer some important original commentary on United States history." That is, the board urged the Journal's editorial staff to review nonscholarly works that powerfully fulfilled our first four criteria--American content, historical perspective, broad significance, and originality.

Books in Other Disciplines

Board members would like the JAH to review books in related fields such as anthropology, law, literature, and cultural studies if they meet some of our criteria (especially if a historical perspective is embedded in them), if they are of use to readers in their role as historians of the United States, and if the reviews highlight that usefulness. They recommended that the JAH assemble a panel of experts on other disciplines who would alert us to books meriting review. We are following the board's counsel that some lag in the appearance of JAH reviews of books outside history is tolerable, since it will be hard to know which works will become influential and since the theoretical or methodological usefulness of such works will not "date" so quickly. They urged that we ask reviewers of nonhistory books to evaluate the connection between those books and the concerns of historians. This means that the reviewer should usually be a historian, though perhaps one with a foot in another discipline.

Books on History That Occurred outside the United States

Some board members incline to rule such books out on the grounds of their content. Others argue that when their topics or approaches resonate with issues in American history, they may supply invaluable perspective to our readers. The discussion revealed that much the same considerations figure here as with books in other disciplines: the JAH staff needs to ask experts, most often our international contributing editors but sometimes editorial board members, to tell us of books of interest; reviewers need to connect the books with the interests of our readers as historians of the United States. (Here, too, reviews may not be as timely as for the standard scholarly monographs on American history that are routinely sent to us by the publishers.)

In sum, we will ask reviewers of books that fall on the edge of our circle of interest--whether they are histories that do not fit within our broad definition of American content, works from other disciplines, or works in nonscholarly genres--to tailor their reviews to the concerns of our readers. That is, we will ask them to highlight both the works' connections with United States history and the historical perspective embedded in them.

[Top]

Review Formats

In two surveys readers overwhelmingly favored our policy of reviewing many books briefly rather than fewer books more extensively. JAH reviews vary in length from 400 to 2,000 words, with the narrower works getting the briefer reviews. For reviews of monographs, the standard length is 500 words; for reviews of collections of essays it is 600. Responding to readers' interest in reviews that help them see how their fields are developing, we frequently run joint reviews. They vary in length depending on the number of works reviewed; the shortest are 900 words long. To highlight individual works of particular significance, we publish feature reviews of 1,000 to 2,000 words.

By making readers aware of new publications and helping them identify and assess the publications most useful to them, the editorial board and staff of the JAH hope to sustain scholarship. We can do this best if you make us aware of your needs and wishes, of how you envision our role as a journal of record.

-- David Thelen, "Deciding What to Review," Journal of American History, 85 (Sept. 1998), 620-25.

[Top]