Magazine Guidelines for Book Reviews

Borderlands is very interested in book reviews and accepts unsolicited reviews of volumes of poetry or books related to poetry (criticism, essays, etc). Reviewers may, but need not, query. They expect that reviewers be willing to work with editors if changes are deemed necessary. Usually, books under review should have been published within the last 2 years. The editors are particularly interested in essays that draw attention to the work of overlooked poets, and are partial to book reviews that consider more than one work. Their current interests are the following: Longer reviews (approx 1500-2000 words) that take into consideration two or more works. Typically these are two recent volumes of poems that benefit in some way by being looked at together. The idea is that reviewing several works side-by-side affords the opportunity for a broader conversation about poetry. Shorter reviews (approx 500 words) that consider just one (recent) work of poetry. Though short, they like such reviews to quote amply from the work itself. They like to run several short reviews back to back in a section of short reviews, but they don't necessarily include such a section in each issue. Borderlands works under two deadlines each year—mid June for the Fall issue, mid January for the Spring issue—and they recommend that reviews be submitted well in advance of each deadline. Reviewers must include a cover letter with a brief bio.

Chattahoochee Review—guidelines provided by Marc Fitten, Assistant Editor

Chattahoochee Review publishes reviews of current fiction, poetry, and nonfiction, including works on photography and the visual arts. Several related works may be reviewed at more length in a review-essay that engages critical issues not appropriate to a single review. They are looking to expand their review section and are looking to identify a stable of writers that they can turn to regularly. While they want reviews of literary works published by big houses, they also really want to publish reviews for small and international presses. They don't want mawkish fluff pieces and they don't want to crucify anyone. They just want a review that is fair, honest and well-written. They pay $50 per review (750- 1000 words) and $100 for review essays (1250-1500 words). The best way to find out if they are interested in a particular topic is to query Marc Fitten, the assistant editor, at mfitten@gpc.edu.

Chicago Review rarely publishes unsolicited reviews, mainly because unsolicited reviews typically demonstrate zero familiarity with CR's focus or style. The editor does advise would-be reviewers to read the magazines they are submitting to in order to see what has been published in recent issues, to see the kinds of things reviewers attend to—not just to calibrate their own reviews to do the same, but also to see if there were things missing in recent issues.

If you are interested in reviewing new books of poetry for Cold Mountain Review, please send them a vita and a sample book review as well as suggestions for new volumes. CMR runs single book reviews of 900 words and review essays of 3,000 words covering 3-4 volumes of poetry, always including sample poems from each volume reviewed.

The book reviews in ECR are almost always by invitation only. They generally feature long reviews that treat text and poetry in some detail, and the reviews also embody their literary and poetic philosophy which is tough for an outsider to glean without reading a few copies of the magazine or frequenting the website for awhile. They primarily review poetry collections from major and smaller presses, and occasionally review a big fiction or nonfiction volume that might also have been covered in the New York Times or the Washington Post. If you have what you think is a compelling piece, you need to query them first to see if they're interested. They are on the lookout for a few good new reviewers, experienced or novices—in the latter case, they may work with promising new talent.

Hiram Poetry Review publishes reviews of poetry books published within the past year. They consider reviews in different forms. Sometimes a reviewer will discuss several books in a single review, while others just review one book. Potential reviewers should query first with book(s) selections. Pending the editorial board's decision, they will ask for a 750-1000 word review. Editor’s advice: Potential reviewers should look at winners of contests at all levels, rather than focusing only on established authors. In some ways, it is more difficult for new authors to get their book reviewed than it is to publish a book. MFA students can thus have a real impact in the literary world while learning and defining what's happening on the cutting edge of poetry and prose.

Main Street Rag—guidelines provided by M. Scott Douglass, Editor

The books MSR selects for review are not often from major houses. Since their goal is to shed light on literature that has limited distribution and, therefore, is receiving limited attention, they need reviews to be concise. Their goal is to connect author to audience: who would want to read this book and why? They do not run negative reviews. If the work isn’t worth reading, they don't waste space denigrating it. They want reviews that explain what's good about a book—concisely. Mentioning weaknesses is okay, but if you didn't like the book, don't bother writing about it. Most important, let the readers know who would enjoy reading the book. Reviews are only accepted by email. Don't send hardcopies of a review unless requested. Length of reviews is as follows: Chapbooks (350 words), Full-length Poetry or Short Fiction collections (600 word max), Novels, Nonfiction, (7-800 word max). No restriction on subject of review, however, they may request a review copy to examine print quality, and the copyright date needs to be recent—as in no later than the previous calendar year.

Malahat Review tends to only use solicited reviews based upon the books submitted to them from (mostly Canadian) publishers. They are fortunate to have a very talented pool of reviewers from which to draw. From time to time they accept review queries from others—but they tend to be local writers or those whose reputations the editors know and trust.

Manhattan Review has begun to publish more reviews of contemporary poetry books. Though most of them are solicited, they are always open to suggestions from young writers/reviewers. They do not have explicit guidelines, but they do expect a reviewer to focus on the book itself, rather than indulging his or her own literary theories or speculations. The purpose of the review is to inform the audience, which consists of potential readers, what this new book is, what its “family affiliations” might be, and, most important of all, whether it is worth obtaining. They always like reviewers to include a few quotations from poems. They limit reviews to about 350 words, in the spirit of Publisher’s Weekly reviews that have demonstrated how less can definitely be more.

Meridian considers unsolicited reviews. Book reviewers receive no payment but do get a byline.

MQR does occasionally publish unsolicited reviews. On principle editors discourage unsolicited reviews, but the actual truth is that it's very difficult to resist a thoughtful, well-written account of a significant new book. "Significant" is the key word. They do receive a fair amount of unsolicited reviews of poetry and fiction that don't deserve attention in an academic quarterly. A better strategy is to choose a book that you genuinely believe to be an important work, for reasons that bear at least a few pages of discussion (5-8 typewritten pages would be a good guideline). The review ought to show some knowledge of the surrounding literary environment rather than just be a close reading or a patchwork of quotations with occasional comments. The review should be discursive and make an argument, situate the book, and deploy a style with some aphoristic inflections. Though they do not permit multiple submissions for most manuscripts, they make an exception for unsolicited reviews, because they appreciate their timeliness. They would advise new writers to write as intelligently as possible on a new book that impresses them and send the review to a few journals, with a cover letter stating that it's a multiple submission.

The purpose of a book review is to evaluate the significance of new scholarly work: identify its contribution to knowledge and its deficiencies. Too frequently reviews simply itemize the book’s contents while failing to satisfactorily analyze and appraise. Book reviews should not exceed 1,000 words in length, unless pre-approved by the Book Review Editor. In an effort to pursue consistency in review format, it is preferred that the content of the review manuscript has three identifiable elements: description, analysis, and appraisal. Description: First, it is appropriate to describe the book thoroughly: the subject matter, the length, the contents, etc. The aim is to provide the reader with enough information to be able to conceptualize the book’s subject, depth, and tone. For example, consider addressing the following: Who is the target audience? Where does the work fit within the discipline in question? Analysis: Second, it is helpful to analyze the book’s utility on the author’s terms. All authors deserve a fair and appreciative analysis. Consider discussing the best use of the book, the functions it can perform for the reader and what contribution it makes to pedagogy or knowledge. This is one way to identify its strengths. After exposing its utility, please consider its weaknesses. In fairness to the author, this reflection also should stay within the terms of the author’s objectives. Setting the stage with a fair analysis provides a workable platform to discuss the defects or shortfalls. When criticizing, be explicit, fair and honest. It is helpful to cite specific examples so that the reader can judge. Please avoid vague, derogatory remarks. Stick to the content of the book; focusing on the author or discussing your ideas about the subject matter creates a less than desirable review. Appraisal: Third, appraise the book, drawing from your expertise in the field. Evaluate the contribution the book makes to the author’s body of work. If possible, evaluate the contribution the book makes to contemporary poetry at large (locally, regionally, nationally, etc.), particularly if the book seems to break new ground. Following such rational comparison you are most welcome to issue a personal judgment. Please be certain to make clear the basis for your position. Finally, a general appraisal of the book’s impact (versus alternative books) can be made, if desired. If you choose to do so, again, be explicit and explain the rationale of your position. Midwest Quarterly prides itself on being a suitable venue for a variety of disciplines in the humanities, arts and social sciences. Given the diverse readership, it is important to remember that your review will be read by non-specialists. Therefore, it should be inclusive with terms defined, jargon avoided, and no assumptions made with respect to bibliographic or icon familiarity. There are very specific format requirements that are listed on the magazine’s website. Attach a cover sheet that includes your name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone number, and email address. Please include a short biographical sketch to be included near the front of the issue of approximately 50 words. Please send one hard copy and one digital copy either as an email attachment or on diskette (MS Word, WordPerfect, or ASCII text) to Tim Bailey, Book Review Editor, Department of Social Sciences, Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg KS 66762-7531. Please direct all communications concerning reviews to the Book Review Editor at the address listed above or through email to tbailey@pittstate.edu.

Minnesota Review welcomes proposals for reviews of recent books, as well as of journals, significant articles, publishers' catalogs or programs, book series, conferences, novels, poetry, films, television, advertising, and other venues of cultural and intellectual bearing. For reviews, they prefer overviews to reports on specific books. Check out the review-essays in past issues.

Unsolicited book reviews will be considered but run the risk of duplicating what already is being done, so consider a query letter first. New Letters is primarily—but not exclusively—interested in reviewing excellent books that are otherwise not receiving much attention in the national media. They are also interested in books that have something important to say about culture, politics, aesthetics, or any kind of art; that includes scholarly, critical, or biographical books that could find a non-specialized readership. They prefer reviews to be uncluttered, vivid, and free of academic, theoretical, or other kinds of jargon. Single or double-book reviews run 300 to 800 words; essay-reviews on groups of books could run longer, depending on the importance of the book(s) and the quality of the review itself. The review should merit its length. If you have a potential conflict of interest because of the author or publisher of a book you are reviewing, you should either mention that connection in the review itself or refrain from writing about the book. They will not review books by current or former staff members and editors of New Letters or BkMk Press. If you want to review a particular book that you already possess, check with them first. If you want them to order a book for you, or if you want them to send you books for possible review, let them know.

New Orleans Review accepts unsolicited submissions of book reviews year round.

Other Voices publishes 4-5 reviews per issue. All of their reviews are done in-house, and they don't accept unsolicited reviews or work with freelancers.

Pacific Coast Journal normally reviews small-press poetry and short story collections as well as novellas. Occasionally prints reviews of non-fiction when it relates to the topic of being an artist or writer. Pays $5 per accepted review upon publication.

Pleiades Review of Books, which appears as part of each print issue of the magazine, features in-depth reviews of new, primarily small- and independent-press, books. They accept queries for book reviews. Please send query and clips of previously published reviews to Kevin Prufer. No unsolicited reviews will be accepted.

They only publish assigned reviews, and don't have any formal book review guidelines. The only thing that matters is that the review not be either dull or dumb.

Poetry International—guidelines provided by Sarah Maclay, Book Review Editor

They don’t want negative reviews, and they don’t want reviews that examine a piece of literature as if from a judicious distance, perhaps wearing rubber gloves, in order to categorize the work at hand, place it neatly into some historical ranking and then shelve it, along with all the other dead and dissected butterflies, in some cabinet where one senses it will never be opened again. In other words, they aren’t interested in reviewers who seem thoroughly unmoved and unexcited by the reading process, as though the entire point of it is lost on him or her. They want more than a simple book report + evaluation. They want reviews that involve a very close engagement with the work, reflecting on both the content and craft of the text. They aren’t looking for highly evaluative reviews. They see the review as an act of discovery and something that may allow a reader to open a door to a new world, perhaps one that might have seemed inaccessible before. Most importantly, the review should answer the question: what is the writer actually doing? They run reviews of about 500 words. Because Poetry International is published annually, they aren’t as strict about reviewing only books published within the last year, though new books do make up the bulk of what they review. They check with potential reviewers, when giving assignments, to make sure that they do not have a known aversion or a conflict of interest with anything they're going to review, in order to promote the fairest coverage. They also like to match particular reviewers to certain books. At this point they're not really looking for unsolicited reviews, but they’re open to looking at a brief, sample review as a writing sample for possible later use.

Rattle publishes reviews of poetry, which can be critical, but they prefer an approach that includes more process and craft and the human experience about writing. They do not send books out for review but do accept reviews providing they are 350-400 words and fit all on one page. If there are a lot of drop-down quotes, that doesn't work, but rather quotes that fit within a paragraph.

River Walk is open to queries, but will typically ask for references in the industry, so that they can verify the reviewer is reliable. If you query about a review you have already written, the editorial board will consider it for approval. They only assign reviews to writers with good references and a history of being reliable. Some advice from the publisher: Never be nervous about sending in a query to do a review, even to a publication that states they are typically done by staff. When querying, consider the publication itself. Obviously, a fresh MFA isn't going to get a positive response from Hudson Review. Smaller journals may have put that in the guidelines so they wouldn't be buried under queries from people who were just looking for a free copy of a book they are interested in reading. There is no harm in asking, and if nothing else, it is practice in writing a query.

Salt Hill accepts unsolicited book review submissions during the academic year (August 1 to April 1).

Shenandoah is always on the lookout for good reviewers. By "good," they mean a writer who is clear, concise, and exact. Their reviews run around 1000 words, and they need reviews that can quickly and cleanly place a book in some context—historic, aesthetic—and make some serious judgment about it without either over-praising or trashing it completely. They want judicious, thoughtful consideration of what the book's project seems to be and whether that project seems to have been successfully brought to completion. They also want the reviewer to turn the same attention to the shape of the review that he or she would use on a piece of his or her own creative writing.

If you want to review a recent book of poetry (published within the past 3 years), submit by email only.

Book reviews published by South Carolina Review are almost always commissioned, not unsolicited.

Guest columns and book reviews are usually by the editors' invitation, but feel free to query them.

Sycamore Review is open to reviews so long as they are of books that are less than a year old and have not run in other magazines. They publish reviews of fiction (novels or short story collections), poetry and essay collections and other works of literary merit that may be of interest to readers. Small press publications and Indiana authors are given special consideration (but not exclusively so). Critical essays and reviews of periodicals are not considered. Books reviewed should be published no more than one calendar year from the January or June cover date of the issue for which the review is submitted. Reviews must include in a block of information at the beginning: Title, Author, Publisher and year, ISBN, Page count, Format (hardcover, softcover, etc.), Price. Reviews should be between 750 and 1500 words and should include at least one long passage from the reviewed work (documented with page numbers). Reviews do not have to be glowing or harshly disapproving. They should be an honest reader's response and recommendation, not a critical dissection. Read past reviews to get an idea of the style they are looking for. Editor’s advice: Avoid too much academic jargon without adequate, plain spoken explanation. Similarly, avoid using too many direct quotes. Make sure to mention why the book is good and what it is doing that is new. Don't praise a book completely—that a whole book could be written and only have good qualities is unlikely. Along with that, don't flame a book completely—that a whole book could be written and not have a single good quality is unlikely. Don't forget to put the book into some kind of context. Books don't live in empty space. A book's craftiness alone does not a good review make—get into what it means. No query is needed, just send the review.

Most of their reviews are done by contributing editors, occasionally by query. The best reviews are insightful and well-written without calling undue attention to themselves. Their reviewers don't try to upstage the poet they are reviewing. The review is an act of description and evaluation. It tells a reader what the book is literally about, what its subjects are, and how successfully those subjects have been presented to the reader.

Most of the reviews published by VQR are done in-house, though they will consider unsolicited reviews, if sent by attachment. The main criteria is the book must have been published in the last six months.

The editors of West Branch welcome book review submissions. Reviews are typically arranged by assignment. If you are interested in writing reviews, please query with a sample. They currently pay $200 per assigned review.