Göktuğ Kayaalp

#histodons Do you have any tips on doing book reviews for history journals?   

I found some advice online but they seem more natural or social sciences oriented and either history is different or the admittedly few journals I looked at so far are atypical.

What I found said to look out for on journals' websites info about book review editors, books for review or new books lists, and so on. And that you get assigned a book to review by the publisher, you don't just pick one yourself. In the journals I looked at so far they don't have a dedicated reviews editor nor anything about new books or book assignment.

If it's different in history, what's the proper procedure?

Nov 16 at 9:32amWeb
Show threadDaniel OhanianNov 17
@librarysquirrel I've found this useful: https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/the-art-of-reviewing-february-2001/ . Also, here is the framework for a book review that I once received from a very experienced historian: ¶1, say the name of the book and explain its context. ¶2, summarize the book. ¶3, explain and celebrate the book's strengths. ¶4, explain, in mild terms, the book's shortcomings and/or what more can be done by future historians. ¶5, summarize and praise the author. I've used it myself about three times.
The Art of Reviewing – AHA

My title could as well be "The Job of Reviewing."

AHA
Show threadDaniel OhanianNov 17
@librarysquirrel Also, I have once contacted a journal to say, "I want to review this book. Are you interested in securing a copy for me and considering my review for publication?" They said yes.
Show threadGöktuğ KayaalpNov 17
@dohanian Thank you!