The Oral History Review: Guidelines for Book Reviews
Page 1 of 3
Because readers of The Oral History Review come at oral history from a variety of
approaches, backgrounds, and interests, reviews must consider both the substantive content of
the work as well as its use of oral history and/or its value to oral historians. The following
guidelines are intended to assist authors in fashioning their reviews. Authors, however, are urged
to adapt them as necessary to the work under consideration and to exercise their own imagination
and judgment.
I.
Basic Criteria for Reviews
A. Reviews should include a summary of the contents of the book as well as indicate the
extent to which it is shaped by oral material (i.e., Is it an interpretive study that draws
upon oral material as one of several sources; or is it a work based almost entirely
upon oral sources with some interpretive comment by the author/editor; or is it an
anthology of interviews or interview excerpts; or what?).
B. Reviews should also locate and critically evaluate the book within the context of
existing literature on both the subject matter and oral historiography. In other words,
how does the book contribute to our knowledge of the subject at hand and what
insight does it give to oral history as a mode of inquiry?
C. Authors might also appropriately comment upon the author’s organization of his/her
material as well as his/her style and use of language.
D. DEADLINES ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Please inform the review editor if
you cannot meet the established deadline or are unable to complete the review.
Failure to meet deadlines may result in a review not being included in the journal.
E. PLEASE ADHERE TO THE ESTABLISHED WORD COUNT FOR YOUR
REVIEW. In general, a review of one book should be between 750 to 1000 words and
a dual review (i.e., of two books) about 1500 words. The review editor can negotiate
exceptions to these guidelines as well as the length of review essays of several books.
II.
Suggested Criteria for Evaluating the Book’s Use of Oral History
A. A good portion of the review should address the author’s use of oral history material:
How does oral history open new questions/add new insights to the subject at hand?
What new/interesting historiographical questions/ideas does the use of oral materials
itself suggest—questions, for example, about memory and historical consciousness,
about the relationship of the author to his/her subject, about the social and political
context of oral history work, about the interpretive complexities of language?
B. A further consideration is the skill with which the author has mastered the
methodology and technical skills of oral history—indeed, the extent to which he/she
has discussed the methodology. Possible important points here include: the
provenance of the interviews; how interviewees were selected and the
representativeness of the selection; how interviews were conducted and the possible
impact on content; the extent to which interview material was edited and the criteria
January 11, 2007~jbw; revised 10-15-2007 jbw; 10/14/2008jbw; 10/7/2009
The Oral History Review: Guidelines for Book Reviews
Page 2 of 3
used in making editorial decisions; the extent to which interview material has been
processed, its location, and provisions for access to the tapes and/or transcripts.
A word of caution here, however: please be judicious in evaluating books according
to these latter criteria. Sometimes reviews tend to read like litanies of complaints
about minor methodological points. While professional oral historians rightfully are
concerned with such procedures, others—journalists, anthropologists, folklorists,
sociologists, local historians—who also use interview materials have other
methodological concerns. So it isn’t entirely appropriate to hold them to
circumscribed standards. Rather, I would suggest concentrating on what oral
historians might learn from another practitioner’s use of oral materials.
III.
Mechanics
A. The heading should be as follows:
DUBIOUS ALLIANCE: THE MAKING OF MINNESOTA’S DFL PARTY. By
John Early Haynes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. 264 pp.
Hardbound, $35.00; Softbound, $14.95.
B. When a work is not published by a major publisher, please note in the heading the
address from which copies can be ordered.
C. Reviews are to be cleanly typed and double spaced, with generous side, top, and
bottom margins (at least 1.25“). Place page numbers on each page.
D. When quoting directly from the volume under review, cite the page number(s) in
parentheses directly after the quote. Do not use “p.” or “pp.” with the page numbers.
When citing another work for comparative purposes, do not footnote—simply note
author, title, and date of publication with the text of the review, within parentheses.
E. Place your name and institutional affiliation on the right hand side of the last page.
F. The Oral History Review conforms to the stylistic principles detailed in the Chicago
Manual of Style. Please consult that text for all questions about capitalization,
punctuation, etc.
G. Submission of the review: Send the review as a Word attachment to the book review
editor in an email. If a problem arises, send it as a Word document on a disk.
IV.
Caveats
A. Be fair in your review. Avoid digressive essays that do not address in a forthright
manner the book under consideration. Likewise, avoid ad hominem criticism.
B. Refrain from listing typographical or other minor errors unless they substantially
detract from the book’s quality.
January 11, 2007~jbw; revised 10-15-2007 jbw; 10/14/2008jbw; 10/7/2009
The Oral History Review: Guidelines for Book Reviews
Page 3 of 3
C. Definitely advise the review editor in a timely fashion if you think the book is not
appropriate for review.
V.
Revision Policy and Release Form
A. The editors will make minor corrections (spelling, grammar, etc.) without consulting
the author. More substantial copy editing will be submitted to the author for approval.
The editors will make an effort to submit reviews to authors for revision and review
as necessary and as time permits. However, the final decision to print any review rests
with the editors.
B. Once the editors have revised and accepted a review and sent it on to the publisher of
the journal, the publisher will send release forms to the reviewers. To have any
review published, the reviewer must sign and return this release form in a timely
manner.
VI.
Off-Prints
The publisher will send each author a pdf file of his/her review from The Oral History
Review in which it appears.
Contact Info:

Editor: Kimberly Porter [kimberly.porter@und.nodak.edu

Book Review Editor: John Wolford [wolford.john@gmail.com]

Media Review Editor: Doug Boyd [doug.boyd@uky.edu]
January 11, 2007~jbw; revised 10-15-2007 jbw; 10/14/2008jbw; 10/7/2009