Chatting with Tom Reilly award winner, Nick Hirshon.

By Josie Vine, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Nick Hirshon cannot remember exactly how many article reviews he’s done for Journalism History. The counting is “a little tricky”, but he can document at least 23 reviews, covering 14 manuscripts, several of which were reviewed two or three times as they moved through the revision process.

Whatever the number, it’s a lot!

On top of this, when Nick was honored with the Tom Reilly Award for Service to Journalism History, presented to the journal’s top reviewer at the August 2026 History Division awards ceremony, Publications Committee Chair, Brian Creech said Nick “always” wrote “extensive” reviews, some up to 1000 words long.

So that’s about 23 reviews x about 1000-words = a lot!

“Our work as historians can be very lonely at times,” Nick said. “We are digging through archives and writing mostly alone, and then we’re submitting to an impersonal online portal and just waiting, potentially months or longer, to receive a first batch of reviews.

“So it’s very important for us as reviewers to remember that about each other, that we’re helping each other get through this process, forming a community. The effort that an author is putting into an article deserves our time and attention,” he said.

As an Associate Professor of Communication at William Paterson University, Nick aims to model good reviewing practice for his students.

“Any constructive criticism should be geared toward the work and not the person,” he said. “For example, saying ‘the paper could benefit from’ as opposed to ‘the author doesn’t do this well.’

“Being sensitive to what writers go through, helping to nurture them. And even if we’re ending up not suggesting publication, trying to help them find pathways to it instead of just closing a door on them.”

Nick said the contribution that article reviewing makes to scholarly life should be given more recognition.

“Someone may never know how much time you spent on a review, or the difference between someone who reviews perfunctorily and quickly and someone who gives a more thoughtful review that’s time consuming,” he said.

“Hopefully someday there will be a system where reviewers feel more fairly compensated … it doesn’t have to be money. It could be some other value they get out of it, or at least more respect for the work in promotion and tenure.”

When Nick heard he had won the Tom Reilly Award, the news took him back to his graduate director at Ohio University, the late Mike Sweeney, who was prominent in the History Division.

“He taught us as doctoral students to give reviewing our all, as part of an unspoken system we all rely on and one of the truest ways we show we care about each other’s research,” Nick said. “I hope I’m living up to what he taught us.”