Journal for the Society of North Carolina Archivists

Review Guidelines

The Journal for the Society of North Carolina Archivists publishes reviews for books, exhibits, and web sites on a variety of topics related to the archival endeavor.

The principal aim of a review is to appraise critically the material in the book/exhibit/web site, the way in which it is presented, and the contribution it makes to the field.

What should the review contain?

• Context: for a review to be accessible to as many readers as possible, a review needs to contain something about how the material fits into the current thinking on the subject.

• Overview: describe the content of the work in a summary fashion. Avoid excessive detail or a plodding chapter-by-chapter précis. The overview should contain main themes of the material. For a collection of essays or disparate group of material, it is important to say something about each individual item.

• In-depth analysis: Select the main themes or most interesting aspects of the material and describe their contribution to the whole work. Provide cogent examples to illustrate the contribution to the overall work. Try not to be too abstract or vague (i.e., avoid writing phrases such as "interesting observations" or "lots of interesting data").

• Audience: Who is the intended audience of the material? Does the material address that audience? How accessible is the material to a variety of different audiences?

• Comparison: comparison is a useful tool for a review on a common topic. How does this new material present the subject matter differently from other works on the topic?

• Appraisal of ideas: After providing a framework, the reviewer can provide his or her own interpretation of the reliability, accuracy, and suitability of the material for the subject. Include both strengths and weaknesses of the material. Do not, however, tell the author what book you feel he or she should have written. You are writing the review on the material and its contribution to the subject.

• Presentation: Reviewing the presentation can vary among different formats. For books, the style of writing, the lay-out of the text, and the accuracy of the editing provide parameters for discussion. For exhibits, the physical lay-out, environment, and labels are all areas that can be discussed. For web sites, navigational ease, legibility within the electronic environment, well-written prose, use of images, fonts and colors provide areas for review.

• Conclusion: Provide an overall assessment of the material. Highlight its best and worst features, taken from the review. Finally, provide some kind of recommendation, including such things as appropriate audience, use, etc.

Basic elements of the review

• Length: Length varies from review to review depending on the composition of the Journal and the number of the reviews. The review editor will give you a broad target length, but the reviewer will be called on to judge the appropriate length for the review itself.
• Voice: The review should be written in the first person (do not refer to yourself as "the reviewer"); avoid the passive voice.
• Tone: Maintain a courteous tone even when presenting a critical analysis, difference of opinion, or pointing out errors of fact.
• Format: The review should begin with the following items in this order:
  • Bibliographic heading
  • For web sites: last date changed and date reviewed
  • For exhibits: date reviewed
• References: Please use the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition. Quotations from the book being reviewed should be referenced through page-number citations placed in parentheses directly following the quotation.
• Languages: Words and phrases of foreign origin should be italicized, unless they are common English idioms.
• Personal information: At the end of the review, please include your name, position and institution (if appropriate), or other relevant information to indicate your professional expertise.
• Copyright: Copyright of reviews remains with the reviewer.

Submissions of reviews should be sent electronically for consideration to the Review Editor: