Guidelines for Contributing a Book Review

Procedures

All review articles must be submitted in electronic format (transmitted over the Internet as an attachment to an email letter to the appropriate Editor:

• Peer reviewed essay reviews:
  In-depth reviews (5,000 words or longer) of particularly significant books; these submissions will be refereed by scholars who are specialists in the fields addressed by the books under review.
  Gene V Glass, Editor
      glass@asu.edu
• Reviews of scholarly books:
  Gene V Glass, Editor
      glass@asu.edu
• Reviews of practitioner books:
  Kate Corby, Brief Reviews Editor
      corby@msu.edu
• Reviews in Spanish or Portuguese:
  Gustavo E. Fischman, Editor for Spanish & Portugese
      fischman@asu.edu

Reviews should be submitted in a standard word-processing format (such as Microsoft Word or WordPerfect) or, preferably, in "Rich Text Format."

Essay reviews should be 5,000 words long or longer; there is no limit on their length. Reviews of scholarly books should be between 1,000 and 5,000 words.

Brief Reviews of practitioner books call attention to current books for teachers and administrators. The Brief Reviews section publishes brief evaluative summaries of books from the current and previous year.

Every review article should begin by citing the book or books to be reviewed, with full bibliographic information including authors (please include first names), copyright date, full title including any subtitle, place of publication, publisher, number of pages, ISBN Number, and price if available. For example,

Hunt, Morton. (1997). How Science Takes Stock: The Story of Meta-Analysis. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pp. xii + 210. ISBN 0-87154-389-3. $38.95

References and all other citations of published work in the review itself should follow the form specified in the Publication Manual (5th Edition, 2001) of the American Psychological Association. See http://www.apa.org/journals/faq.html. For example,

... as argued by Hedges (1987) in his investigation into the reliability of observations in the physical sciences."

And then in the References at the end of the review, the citation of Hedges (1987) would appear as follows:

References

Hedges, L.V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? The empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist, 42(5), 443-455.

Footnotes are not permitted; auxillary information normally included in footnotes should be included in Endnotes that appear directly before any References at the end of the review.

Submitted articles should be accompanied by a paragraph describing the review author's institutional affiliation and areas of interest.

Editorial Policy

All accepted articles are subject to copyediting by the Editor, including editing for length and format consistency, as well as editing for content. All changes will be submitted to authors for final approval before publication.

Copyright Policy

Copyright for all articles published in ER will be retained by the authors. Permission to use any copyrighted material in review articles, or permission to republish reviews also being published elsewhere, must be obtained by the author prior to publication in ER.

Criteria by Which Submitted Reviews Will Be Judged

Submitted reviews will be judged for possible publication according to the following Criteria. (Click here.)

 

home | reviews | editors | volunteer | contribute | subscribe | publishers | search