- About Archives
- About SAA
- Careers
- Education
- Publications
- Advocacy
- Membership
The Reviews section of the American Archivist provides a forum for the evaluation of literature that affects, and is affected by, emerging archival theory and practice. Reviews should be of recent publications of significance to the archival profession that relate to themes explored in the journal. Reviews may be of a single publication (including cloth monographs and open access reports and literature) or a review essay that evaluates several related works to explore broader themes in the archival literature. Reviewers are selected by the Reviews Editors.
Specific guidelines for publication reviews for American Archivist include the following:
Huth, Geof. Review of Donors and Archives: A Guidebook for Successful Programs, by Aaron D. Purcell, American Archivist 79, no. 1 (2016): 201-204.
Laico, Christopher M. Review of Dissonant Archives: Contemporary Visual Culture and Contested Narratives in the Middle East, edited by Anthony Downey, American Archivist 79, no. 2 (2016): 468-472.
American Archivist follows the style guidelines and guiding principles of The Chicago Manual of Style. Terms having special meanings for members of the profession should conform to the definitions in the Dictionary of Archives Terminology. Reviews’ variations from these standards should be minimal and purposeful. For spelling and usage, reviewers should reference the latest edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
The reviewer is responsible for understanding and following the principles that govern the “fair use” of quotations and for obtaining written permission to publish, where necessary. Accuracy in endnote citations is also the reviewer's responsibility, although the editors may occasionally confirm the accuracy of selected citations.
American Archivist will not consider a review that is being reviewed by another journal at the same time, nor will it normally consider a review that has been published previously in a similar form.
Length
Reviews should be approximately 1,500 words in length. For review essays, the length and topic will be decided upon in advance with the Reviews Editors and journal Editor.
Bibliographic Information
Reviewers must identify bibliographic information at the beginning of the review, which should include in the following order: title (in bold); author(s) or editor(s); place of publication; publisher; year of publication; extent of pages; publication format(s) (e.g., hardcover/softcover/EPUB/PDF); currency and price; and ISBN or ISSN. For example:
Track Changes: A Literary History of Word Processing
By Matthew G. Kirschenbaum. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016. 368 pp. Hardcover. $29.95. ISBN 978-0-67441-707-6.
Endnotes
American Archivist uses Arabic numeral endnotes. Endnotes should conform to standard bibliographic style found in the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style.
Quoting from the Publication
When quoting or paraphrasing from the publication being reviewed, note the page number preceded by a “p.” (or “pp.” for more than one page) in round brackets at the end of the quote. For example:
In her essay, artist Mariam Ghani, for example, asserts that “the task of the artist in an archive... is to understand which of the archive’s preserved pasts relate to the present moment of danger, and to translate and narrate that past into the present” (p. 54).
Author Information
The reviewer’s name and institution should appear at the end of the review, aligned to the right.
Reviewers retain copyright of their work and license publication to American Archivist.
Except where otherwise noted, article content in American Archivist is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 United States License. Some rights reserved.
All reviews published in American Archivist are open access.
The Reviews Editors will contact the publisher on the reviewer’s behalf to request a complimentary review copy of the publication. The review copy becomes the property of the reviewer upon publication of the review.
Reviews are evaluated by the Reviews Editors, who may recommend edits and revisions to reviews. Reviewers will be notified of suggested revisions and edits within approximately four weeks following submission. Acceptance for publication is usually on the condition that specified revisions be made. Reviewers are given the opportunity to approve all editorial changes and to review page proofs for correction of printer’s errors only. The minimum editorial and production cycle—which includes receipt of a review, evaluation, revision, acceptance, page makeup, printing and distribution—is approximately nine to twelve months; various factors can affect that time period.
Upon publication, reviewers receive a complimentary PDF of their review.
Inquiries about material to be reviewed or to become a reviewer should be directed to:
Reviews Editors Rose Buchanan (Archivist, Archives 1 Reference Branch, National Archives and Records Administration) and Stephanie Luke (Metadata Librarian, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) at ReviewsEditor@archivists.org.
Publishers may send review copies to:
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
ATTN: Stephanie Luke
1408 W Gregory Drive
M/C 522
Urbana, IL 61801