Publication Ethics

JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.

Peer Review Policy

Book History, an official publication of the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP), accepts submissions of original, researched scholarly articles focused on issues in the history of the book, print or manuscript culture, authorship, and reading. We do not publish informal articles or reviews. Articles should not be merely case studies; they must contribute to a larger debate or comment on a broader question in the field and show a familiarity with current scholarship. Desired length is approximately 7-10,000 words but we will consider shorter or, in special cases, longer pieces. We do not accept simultaneous submissions. We do not consider translations of articles that have been previously published in other languages; for those types of submissions, please consider Book History’s sister publication Lingua Franca. 

Book History uses double-blind peer review. Authors submit their piece through the ScholarOne portal to the editor responsible for the article’s area (for Europe, Yuri Cowan; for the Americas, Greg Barnhisel; for Africa, Oceania, Asia, and “State of the Discipline” pieces, Beth LeRoux), and upon initial submission all editors read the article and vote on whether it should be sent out for review. Having passed preliminary editorial review, all articles are sent to expert peer reviewers in a double-blind process (reviewers do not know the identity of the author, and the author is not informed of the identity of the reviewers), although authors are asked to provide names of possible reviewers. Reviewers return their reports within 4-6 weeks recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection. The reviews are advisory and the editors reserve the right not to follow a reviewer’s recommendation or even to find another reviewer if they deem a given review unacceptable. Authors have three months to revise and resubmit their articles but extensions can be given.

Criteria for review, both by the editors and the reviewers, are:

  • Relevance, originality, plausibility, strength of the argument
  • Contribution of the article to an ongoing topic in the field
  • Quality of the research and engagement with other scholarship on the topic
  • Quality of the writing and organization of the article