Below are guidelines for writing a review of software, websites, or other resources and for writing a microreview. Reviews of tools and technologies that analyze a wide variety of resources within an archival context. Microreviews are short, informal submissions – share with us what you’re reading!
Guidelines for preparing a review of software, websites, or other resources
- Reviews should be 500–750 words in length. The Reviews Editor and the Reviews Portal Coordinator reserve 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 author’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, its strengths and weaknesses.
- Respond to the author’s thesis and opinions (if applicable).
- Discuss the resource within an archival context, 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.
- Do not focus on minor typographical or factual errors unless the work is significantly compromised.
Guidelines for preparing a microreview
- Microreviews are short, informal contributions that should be 100-200 words in length. The Reviews Editor and the Reviews Portal Coordinator reserve the right to edit for length.
- What are you reading? Briefly describe a monograph, journal article, or blog (or a combination of these resources).
- How did you come across this item(s)? Why is it interesting to you? Why would others find it interesting?