Login or Register to make a submission.

Author Guidelines

The best book reviews are not book reports—we discourage descriptive, often tedious, summaries of book chapters. We seek book reviews that discuss strengths, weaknesses, originality of ideas, and relevance of the book’s arguments by explaining, interpreting, and analyzing the text.


Review Procedures

Register. All reviews must be processed through our online managing system. Reviewers need to have an active registration as “authors” in the system to request books for review.  

Write. Reviews should be in a standard word-processing format (such as Microsoft Word) or in “Rich Text Format.”

Regular book reviews of scholarly books should be between 1,000 and 2,000 words (preferred length is 1,500 words). Essay reviews must be least 5,000 words, and are infrequently published, with prior authorization required. Essay reviews should offer either (1) an in-depth review of two or more books (preferred); or (2) an in-depth review of one book, with a focus on relevance to a specific current educational issue, its contribution to educational scholarship, theory, or practice, and/or pertinence to a specific audience or groups of audiences.

Cite. Every review should include the full citation of book or books to be reviewed, including author/s (including first initial/s), copyright date, full title including any subtitle, place of publication, publisher, number of pages, ISBN number. For example, 

Hass, E. M., Fischman, G. E. & Brewer, J. (2014). Dumb ideas won’t create smart kids: Straight talk about bad school reform, good teaching and better learning. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Pp. 160                                                                                                ISBN: 978-0807755532


References and all other citations of published work in the review should follow the form specified in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. For example, “… as argued by Hedges (1987) in his investigation into the reliability of observations in the physical sciences.

In the References at the end of the review, Hedges (1987) would appear as follows:


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.


Submit. Reviews may be submitted through the online line portal within the author account section, via the New Submission link. You must be registered as an author to submit a review.


The final publication of reviews depends on the Editors' judgment that the criteria listed above are satisfied. In addition, ER is committed to prompt turnaround times on its reviews, and commissioned reviews should be completed by the agreed upon deadline. The standard timeframe for the completion of a book review is 8-10 weeks. Failure to meet such deadlines removes any obligation to publish the article, although this decision remains at the Editors' discretion.

More than one submission by the same author will not be accepted, and new submissions be not be accepted by an author with another submission pending review. The Editors reserve the right to accept or deny requests to review, and the submission of a review or revision does not guarantee publication.

If accepted for publication, final versions of book reviews must be placed in the standard Education Review template, provided to the author from the Editor.


When we evaluate book reviews, we ask does the author:

  • examine the content of the book, the author’s treatment of the topic, and the author’s conclusions?
  • provide a clear idea of the contents of the book under consideration?
  • integrate the various themes of the book, avoiding a chapter-by-chapter treatment of topics?
  • position the book within the discipline and/or suggest its importance to the field?
  • illustrate and discuss the strong and weak points of the book in a critical and respectful manner?
  • quotations from the book or related works to illustrate or provide specific examples of the type of analysis or style of the author? (not a succession of long quotations)
  • present a reasoned evaluation of the book and its conclusions?
  • write in a clear and engaging style?
  • achieve high standards of clarity of presentation, organization of ideas, format and length?

Additional issues to consider:

  • What is the book like as a physical and aesthetic object?
  • Who are the authors? (What are her or his particular credentials and expertise in this area? What makes her or him an expert on this topic?
  • For whom are the authors writing? (academics, students, and/or the general public)? Is the book appropriate for its audience?
  • What other books have been published on this topic in the past five years?  How the book is positioned among the professional literature (in favor or against other frameworks)?
  • Anything that it is a notably strong (or weak) characteristic? (If so, explain why)
  • What’s the importance of this book for scholars, professionals and other people interested in educational issues (“Why should an educational researcher/educator care about this book?”)
Above all, remember that a book review is meant to be a resource to readers, providing enough detail, perspective, and insight to help readers to make an informed decision about whether or not they will pursue reading the book in entirety.          

Acquired Wisdom

This section is for invited manuscripts only.

Pedagogical Legacies

This section is for invited manuscripts only.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.