Journalism History Book Review Philosophy
Journalism History reviews recently published books of interest to scholars, educators, practitioners, and enthusiasts in the many subfields of journalism, media, and mass communication. While we primarily review research-based scholarly books, we also occasionally review memoirs and other works from scholars, professionals, and critics. The principal purpose of these reviews is to advance scholarly dialogue in media history. They are not merely summaries but also offer interpretations and explanations, situating a particular work within the evolving historiography of media, communication, and culture.
In addition to evaluating individual works, book reviews are also a space to consider the field of media history more generally. While reviewers consider the book that was written (and not the book they wish the author wrote), they can also comment on larger issues of periodization, archival practices, research methods, the nature of historical evidence, geographic hegemony, and other matters of media history theory. In this manner, book reviews remain a pivotal part in making media history a dynamic and self-reflexive scholarly enterprise.
Reviewing for the Journal
If you are interested in reviewing, please contact me (joseph.jones@mail.wvu.edu) and pitch a book you think is appropriate for the journal. If it is deemed appropriate, we will then work out the details. Do not submit an unsolicited book review through the Taylor & Francis portal. You must first work with me before a review will be considered for publication.
Publishers are welcome to contact me and propose books they think are an appropriate fit for the journal. If we decide to commission a review, we will then work with your publishing house to have a book sent directly to a reviewer. We are then happy to notify you when a review is published.
Overview of the Book Review Process
1. Pitch a book to (or be contacted by) the book review editor via email (joseph.jones@mail.wvu.edu).
2. Obtain approval, review instructions, and a deadline for the review. Also provide necessary information to receive a copy of the book.
3. Write the review in the appropriate format and adhering to the guidelines.
4. Send a first draft (as a Word doc) to the book review editor via email.
5. Via email, receive a copyedited final version of the review or comments regarding its content. You may be asked to rewrite certain portions for clarity or deeper analysis. Respond to the comments and work with the book review editor until a final form of the review is agreed upon.
6. Upload the agreed upon review to the Taylor & Francis website following the prompts and agreeing to the terms.
7. Review is published following the journal’s publishing schedule.
Guidelines for Reviewers
Note: You must first obtain approval from the book review editor to review a specific book and also send a draft of the review to the book review editor to agree upon a final form before submitting your review on the Taylor & Francis website.
1. You may not co-author your review using artificial intelligence.
2. Please use Times New Roman 12-point type and double-space your review.
3. Limit yourself to 700 to 900 words unless you have permission from the book editor.
4. Start your review with the book information left-aligned and bolded, followed by the reviewer information in the following format:
Author name. Book title. Publisher location: publisher name, year published, page length (formatted as “# pp.”), price (hardcover/paperback), ISBN: #. Reviewed by name, department, institutional affiliation, contact email.
Ex:
Mellinger, Gwyneth. Racializing Objectivity: How the White Southern Press Used Journalism Standards to Defend Jim Crow. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2024, 288 pp., $32.95 (paperback), ISBN: 9781625348104. Reviewed by Joseph Jones, Reed School of Media & Communications, West Virginia University, joseph.jones@mail.wvu.edu
5. Describe what the author set out to do.
6. Quickly summarize the content of the book including its layout and organization of chapters. This should not exceed a quarter to a third of the review.
7. Keep direct quotations from the book to a minimum.
8. Describe how well or poorly a job the author has done in accomplishing the task identified in #5. This may include analysis of sources, evidence, arguments, conclusions, etc.
9. Do not critique the book you wish the author wrote, but rather the one that was written. Respect the author’s choices if they do not match your own, but feel free to comment on them. If you find nothing to commend the book, notify the book review editor immediately. If a book is poorly written, researched, and conceived, Journalism History will not publish a review of it.
10. Have (informed) opinions!
11. Explain what contribution this book makes. What gaps does it fill? How does it compare with other books in the same genre?
12. As part of the above, make some statements about the book’s significance.
13. Explain who might be most interested in the book. Here, particularly mention whether it would be helpful for teaching a course; if so, say what level and what kinds of courses.
Journalism History journal 