The Oral History Review: Article Submissions

The Oral History Review uses Scholar One for submission of article manuscripts, as well as book reviews and media/non-print reviews. Click here to submit an article manuscript to the Oral History Review. Contact Book and Media Review editors directly for information on reviewing for the journal. 

  • Correspondence regarding the development of individual submissions should be directed to Editor Holly Werner-Thomas, at
  • Correspondence regarding editorial matters related to the management and production of the journal should be sent to Molly Todd, Managing Editor, at
  • Correspondence regarding, and submissions of, solicited and unsolicited book reviews, as well as inquiries on where to send books for review, should be directed to Book Review Editor Sharon Raynor, at
  • Correspondence regarding significant applications of oral history in settings other than in books (for example, music or theater pieces, museums or art exhibits, online archives, podcasts or other interactive presentations) should be directed to Media Review Editor Bud Kliment, at

Even with Scholar One and its detailed submission instructions, the OHR’s editorial team still wants authors to note the following information:

  • Formatting: Manuscripts should be double-spaced throughout (including abstract, footnotes and quotations) and prepared according to the Chicago Manual of Style.
  • Peer Review: The Oral History Review conducts blinded peer-review. When uploading your manuscript, you will need to upload a manuscript file with no identifying author information and a separate title page with author details.
  • No Simultaneous Submissions: Manuscripts submitted for publication to other journals should not be sent simultaneously to The Oral History Review nor should the same or very similar article be published in another journal or periodical if it is to be published in the Oral History Review.

Visit the Routledge, Taylor & Francis for detailed author instructions.

A Note on Submissions

Most readers won’t know this, but at one time, the Review mostly published project-based work. While it was good work, it didn’t necessarily offer new insights into the field, but rather reported on project-based research. The difference can be subtle, and the journal continues to receive many submissions that are project-based only. However, while using oral history to make an historical argument is an important component of oral history, as is oral history that documents events, especially when the written record is insufficient, the Review seeks to offer new insight into oral history practice, theory, and methodology, as outlined in our Mission Statement.

A project (whether the authors’ own work, or analysis presented from an archival collection or elsewhere) is therefore the first necessary element of a submission, but published articles strive to push beyond projects toward insights that all readers will gain something from. An example might be the difference between if, for his renowned essay, The Death of Luigi TrastulliAlessandro Portelli had set out to collect the experiences of those who were connected to the police killing of a young steel worker in a town in Italy (perhaps there was a dearth of written records), versus analyzing the varied memories collected in those oral histories surrounding the killing of this young Italian worker, as well as what those reconstructed memories in turn said about Italian society, and, significantly, how oral history as a methodology was the only way to gain that insight.

Scroll to Top