Editorial Statements

• Before you submit a review, familiarize yourself with American Archivist‘s Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement.
• American Archivist strictly adheres to and requires authors to follow “fair use” rules of quotations and illustrations, and to obtain written permission to publish where necessary. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations. Editors may confirm the accuracy of any citations.
• All linked information (websites, reports, email addresses, etc.) has been verified as accurate and current at the time of publication. Neither the Society of American Archivists (SAA) nor the American Archivist Editorial Board maintains or updates links that are published in American Archivist or on the American Archivist Reviews Portal. SAA and the Editorial Board are not responsible for dead links or links that lead to unanticipated sites.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Publications | Software, websites, and other resources | Pop culture media | Microreviews

Please see Editorial Process below for more information about the publication process.

Guidelines for Preparing a Publication Review

Please see How to Write a Publication Review for American Archivist for publication review guidelines.

Guidelines for Preparing a Review of Software, Websites, or Other Resources

Reviews should be 600–850 words in length. Reviews of multi-document resources may be a maximum of 1500 words in length. The Reviews Editor reserves the right to edit for length.

For software, websites, or other resources, reviewers must supply as complete a citation as possible, based on guidelines found in the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. If you have questions about citing source information, please contact the Reviews Editor.

Specific guidelines for writing a review include the following:

• Discuss the creator’s or organization’s credentials and background.
• Briefly describe the resource, providing a simple overview and summary.
• All reviews are a personal statement. Discuss your reaction to the resource, including its strengths and weaknesses.
• Discuss the resource within an archival context, including its relationship to archives and its significance for the discipline.
• Evaluate the resource as a whole in terms of its usefulness to archivists and users of archives materials. If the resource has been used in a particular institutional or research context, it maybe useful to provide an example of how it has been used and adopted in that setting.
• Do not focus on minor typographical or factual errors unless the work is significantly compromised.

Guidelines for Preparing a Pop Culture and Archives Review

Reviews focusing on pop culture media and the representation of archives and archivists should be 1300–1500 words in length. The Reviews Editor reserves the right to edit for length.

Specific guidelines for writing a review include the following:

• Briefly explain how the piece or pieces of media relate to past or current archival practices, mentalities, tropes, or stereotypes.
• Include a summary of the piece or pieces of media under review. Keep in mind that not everyone has seen, read, or experienced the media you’re reviewing.
• Include citations for the media as well as any scholarly works used for additional context. Reviewers must supply as complete a citation as possible, based on guidelines found in the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style.
• Have fun with the review! Your voice and perspectives should come through the review.

Guidelines for Preparing a Microreview

Microreviews are short, informal contributions that should be 100–400 words in length. The Reviews Editor reserves the right to edit for length.

Specific guidelines for writing a microreview include the following:

• What are you reading? What apps are you using to make your work easier? Briefly describe a monograph, journal article, app, or blog (or a combination of these resources).
• How did you come across this item? Why is it interesting to you? Why would others find it interesting?

See our Introduction to Microreviews for more information.

Editorial Process

• The reviewer selects a resource to review in consultation with the Reviews Editor. If needed, the Reviews Editor provides a list of specific suggestions based on the reviewer’s interests.
• The reviewer selects a due date for the first draft. Typically, reviewers take 4 to 6 weeks to write the first draft. We accommodate your schedule and priorities. If needed, your due date can be updated.
• On the due date, the reviewer submits the first draft as a Word Document to the Reviews Editor.
• Two people on our team edit the review, track any changes, and add comments as needed. Typically this first round of editing takes 2–3 weeks depending on our editors’ availability.
• We return our comments to the reviewer, who then selects a due date for revisions. Most reviewers take 2–3 weeks to make revisions. Drafts may go through several rounds of revisions, including copyediting.
• The reviewer returns their final draft along with a signed agreement that gives SAA the license needed to publish the reviewer’s work.
• We schedule your review for publication. Most often reviews are published within 1–2 weeks depending on the publication schedule.

Questions? Please contact the Reviews Editor.