Book Review Guidelines

Book Review Editor: Kamili Posey, Kingsborough College,

Authors and publishers are encouraged to send PDF versions of books for review to the Book Review Editor at the email address above.

Review Copies

Individuals who would like to review a book for SERRC that is relevant to social epistemology are encouraged to get in touch with the Book Review Editor who will request a review copy of the book be sent to the Reviewer. The Editor’s contact details are at the top of this page.

Types of Review

We publish three main types of book review: Reviews, Responses, and Symposiums. One approach that distinguishes SERRC from many other publications in terms of its book reviews is that we frequently publish more than one review of the same book. These reviews often approach the book with a different focus or from different areas of expertise. Past examples are listed under “Symposiums” on our Book Reviews page. We also encourage authors to respond to reviews of their work and, where appropriate, pursue an extended dialogue with reviewers. These are listed under “Responses”. The purpose of both Symposiums and Responses is to encourage a more in-depth and richer discussion around books of particular interest to the social epistemology community.

If you are interested in proposing a Book Review Symposium, please contact the Editor at the address at the top of this page.

Reviewers should let the Book Review Editor know if they would prefer to not engage with the author.

Content Guidelines

Reviews should include an overview of the central arguments, themes, approach, and/or chapters of the book, as well as a critical appraisal in terms of its contribution to the relevant literature, its pedagogical value, and so on.

We encourage innovative approaches to reviews, especially if they demonstrate a social-epistemological approach. Reviews can be any length, though the default for a single-authored review is 2000-2500 words.

Manuscript Preparation Guidelines

Begin your review with the following information:

<Title of Review>: A Review of <Author>’s <Title of Book>
<Reviewer 1’s Name>, <Reviewer 1’s Institutional Affiliation>; <Reviewer 2’s Name>, <Reviewer 2’s Institutional Affiliation>

<Title of Book>
<Publisher>, <Year>
<# pp.>

For example:

Taking Issue: A Review of Bryan Frances’ Disagreement
Jonathan Matheson, University of North Florida; Katelyn Hallman, University of North Florida

Bryan Frances
Polity, 2014
224 pp.

References should be Chicago notes-and-bibliography style. Refer to the Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide for guidance.

For example:

Harding, Sandra. Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Mirowski, Philip. “The Scientific Dimensions of Social Knowledge and their Distant Echoes in 20th Century American Philosophy of Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35, no. 2 (2004): 283-326.

Submission Guidelines

Book reviews should be saved as Word files and submitted to the Book Review Editor at the email address listed above. They will be copy-edited by the Editor; once the Reviewer(s) approve the copy-edited manuscript, the review will be published online.

Single-authored reviews should be sent to the Book Review Editor within 3 months of receipt of the book. Multiple-authored reviews should be sent to the Book Review Editor within 4 months of receipt of the book. Prospective Reviewers will be asked to confirm their ability to complete the review within this time-frame before a review copy of the book is sent to them.