AHA Oversight of the American Historical Review

Approved by AHA Council on June 4, 2016; updated January 8, 2026

 

Purpose

This document aims to clarify the purpose and methods of oversight of the American Historical Review (AHR). It synthesizes information in governing documents about roles and responsibilities, and it adds a statement of principles of oversight.

History of the AHA and AHR

Congress chartered the American Historical Association in 1889 “for the promotion of historical studies, the collection and preservation of historical manuscripts, and for kindred purposes in the interest of American history, and of history in America.” In 1895, two AHA members founded the American Historical Review as an independent publication. The journal struggled financially, so AHA began subsidizing it in 1898. The journal became an AHA publication in 1915. The location of the editorial office has changed periodically.

Principles of Oversight

 

Purpose of Principles of Oversight

Governing documents assign oversight of the AHR to the Research Division. The documents spell out some aspects of oversight, such as consultation on appointments to the Board of Editors and Associate Review Editors, while leaving much to the discretion of office holders. Our experience is that organizations function best when individuals have a shared understanding of roles and expectations. Because members of the Research Division and journal editors change regularly, it would be easy for misunderstandings to arise. This “Principles of Oversight” section creates an institutional memory. It is a tool for clarifying current understanding, not a binding set of expectations for the Research Division or journal editors in the future. We expect practices, and perhaps principles, will change with time.

Purpose of the American Historical Review

AHA publishes the AHR to advance the mission of the Association (which is “the promotion of historical studies, the collection and preservation of historical manuscripts, and for kindred purposes in the interest of American history, and of history in America”). Currently, the journal focuses on advancing research. Articles and book reviews are the main types of journal content. Other types of content (e.g., roundtables, forums, etc.) appear, too. The journal should retain its focus on research, but it could aim to advance other aspects of the AHA mission as well. Research Division and Council should approve modifications of the journal’s mission.

Spirit of Oversight

The spirit of oversight is the same as in other aspects of AHA governance. Everyone involved with the AHA—elected officers, appointed officers, staff, and members—are partners in the effort to advance our discipline. Collegiality, supportiveness, reflection, respect for diversity of views, transparency, confidentiality (when necessary), and compromise (when appropriate) are important. Oversight is not micromanagement. Oversight focuses on goals, performance, and appointments rather than day-to-day management and editorial decisions. Research Division and Council encourage editors to be creative in adapting the journal to an ever-changing discipline.

AHR Editor or Co-Editors

The editor or co-editors manage the journal, make editorial decisions, and ensure the AHR reaches the AHA’s goals for the journal. The editor or co-editors have flexibility in selecting the means to reach goals. The editor or co-editors have autonomy in deciding which pieces the journal publishes, which is important for attracting top editors, preventing political interference, and encouraging creativity. The editor or co-editors are ex officio members of the AHA Council (under the AHA Constitution) and Research Division (by tradition) without vote. The editor or co-editors report to the Research Division, usually via the vice president, research.

Term plan. Before beginning each term (typically five years), the editor or co-editors submit a plan for the term to the Research Division. Typically, the draft term plan will be submitted prior to the Research Division’s fall teleconference. In approximately three to five pages, the term plan spells out the editor’s goals and resources needed. The plan may include other kinds of information. The editor or co-editors discusses the plan with the Research Division with the aim of agreeing on the plan. If discussion fails to produce agreement, the Research Division has the authority to require changes. The Research Division expects not to need to use this authority, because the search and reappointment processes should ensure that the Research Division and editor or co-editors have common goals. The plan is not a contract. It is statement of the editor’s or co-editors’ vision. Experience, new ideas, change in the discipline, change in resources, and other variables may lead to modification of goals during an editor’s or co-editors’ term. The editor or co-editors and Research Division revisit the term plan as needed, but usually revision will not be required. The editor’s or co-editors’ annual reports usually suffice for updating term plans.

Annual report. Before the January Council meeting, the editor or co-editors submit a report to Council. This should include the journal’s accomplishments and challenges for the previous year (e.g., the report submitted in December 2025 reports on 2025). The report summarizes activities of the Board of Editors, Associate Review Editors, and Consulting Editors. It should also describe plans goals, resources, and budget requests, if any, for the upcoming year, as well as the extent to which the journal fulfilled goals submitted one year earlier. If goals changed during the year, the report explains the reasons and results. The report may include other kinds of information.

Composition of Board of Editors, Associate Review Editors, and Consulting Editors. The editor or co-editor consults with the Research Division on (a) principles used to compose the Board of Editors, Associate Review Editors, and any Consulting Editors, and (b) individual nominees for each. Before the Research Division spring teleconference, the editor submits names and fields of potential nominees for the any upcoming vacancies. This information becomes part of the agenda book for the meeting. The Research Division discusses nominees with the editor or co-editors in the meeting, which should result in a list of mutually agreeable nominees. After the meeting, the editor or co-editors submit the names of nominees and their CVs (or links to nominees’ websites) to Council for inclusion in the agenda book for the June Council meeting.

Term packet. During the penultimate year of their term (typically year four), the editor or co-editors submits a term packet to Research Division and Council in advance of the January Council meeting. The purpose is to collect information useful for Council, Research Division, the reappointment committee (if the editor or co-editors seek reappointment), future editors, and those studying the AHA’s history. The term packet has three parts.

1. A summary report on performance for the whole term. It includes the same categories of information as annual reports, plus recommendations for the journal in the future.
2. The editor’s or co-editors’ term plan. Submitted at the beginning of the editor’s or co-editors’ term, it is included in the packet for the convenience of readers and requires no revision from the original submission.
3. All the editor’s or co-editors’ annual reports. Submitted earlier, they are included in the packet for the convenience of readers and require no revision from the original submissions.

Reappointment packet. During the penultimate year of their term (usually year four), an editor or co-editors seeking reappointment submit a packet to the reappointment review committee. Submission of the reappointment packet will coincide with submission of the term packet. Council appoints the review committee at the January meeting. The packet has three parts.

1. The editor’s term packet
2. A plan for the upcoming term
3. All the editor’s or co-editors’ performance review reports. Previously submitted by review committees (see “Performance review of editor or co-editors” below), they are included in the packet for the convenience of readers and require no revision from the original submissions.
   Research Division

The Research Division works with the editor or co-editors to clarify, and help the AHR reach, the AHA’s goals for the journal. Research Division welcomes suggestions from the editor or co-editors on goals. Research Division gives editors flexibility in selecting means for reaching goals. Research Division encourages editors to be creative and explore new kinds of content, especially in ways that enhance the journal’s impact on a changing discipline. The four members of Research Division are invited to attend the Board of Editors meeting at the AHA annual meeting. The Research Division analyzes the budget to ensure wise use of funds.

Performance review of editor or co-editors. The Research Division carries out the performance review of the editor or co-editors after 18 months and 36 months of the editor’s or co-editors’ term. The review committee consists of the vice president, research (chair), a current or past member of the AHR Board of Editors who has served during the tenure of the current editor or co-editors, and a historian nominated by the president. The committee evaluates the editor’s or co-editors’ performance as editor and Council member. After considering the editor’s or co-editors’ annual packet, the committee evaluates the extent to which the editor or co-editors and journal reached their goals, any specific written directions given to the editor or co-editors, and the editor’s or co-editors’ relationship with the Council. The committee submits a written report on the performance review to the editor or co-editors, Research Division, and Council by the next meeting of Council immediately following the evaluation.

AHA Council

At its January meeting, Council discusses the AHR editor’s or co-editors’ annual report. Before the June meeting, Council members review recent issues of the journal. In executive session at the meeting immediately following the editor’s or co-editors’ performance review, Council discusses the packet submitted by the performance review committee. In the open part of the June meeting, Council (a) appoints Board of Editors members, Associate Review Editors, and Consulting Editors (if necessary) and (b) discusses the intellectual content of the journal. The goal of the discussion is to make Council an intellectual resource for the editor or co-editors and Research Division.

The AHA notifies appointees to the Board of Editors, Associate Review Editors, and Consulting Editors. The appointment letter explains the responsibilities and expectations of the position and the requirements as members of an AHA committee.

Reappointment Review

If an editor or co-editor requests reappointment, Council appoints a review committee during its January meeting. After reviewing the editor’s or co-editor’s reappointment packet, the committee assesses the performance of the editor or co-editor in light of the position’s job description, any specific written directions given to the editor or co-editor, and the editor’s or co-editor’s relationship with the Council. The review committee submits a written report to the Research Division by the time of its spring conference call that (a) evaluates the editor’s performance, and (b) recommends whether to reappoint the editor. The editor receives a copy of the report when it goes to Research Division. If the editor disagrees with the report, they may submit a written response to the Research Division within seven days of receiving the report. After waiting seven or more days, the Research Division votes on whether to recommend reappointment of the editor. The vice president, research, relays the Research Division’s recommendation, the review committee’s report, and the editor’s response (if submitted) to Council. At its June meeting, Council votes on whether to reappoint the editor.

AHR Committees and Consulting Editors

The AHR and the editor or co-editors are supported by two committees, the Board of Editors and the Associate Review Editors, and a group of Consulting Editors. These bodies embody the diversity of the AHA membership. They include individuals who (among other things) study diverse periods and places, work in diverse thematic fields, and are diverse in gender and ethnicity.

Board of Editors

The purpose of the Board of Editors is to advise and assist the editor or co-editors. Currently, board members review manuscripts, suggest peer reviewers, and organize essays on themes (e.g., in forums, roundtables, and conversations). Roles may change in the future. The editor or co-editors explain expectations to prospective board members before nominating them.

The AHA executive director is an ex officio member of the Board of Editors, primarily to facilitate communication between the journal and the rest of the AHA. The executive director may offer advice. The editor has the authority to ask the executive director to perform the same tasks as other board members (such as reviewing manuscripts). The editor expects not to use it, except in unusual circumstances, because the executive director plays a different role than other members of the board.

The Board of Editors meets at the AHA annual meeting. The editor or co-editors chair the meeting. The four members of the Research Division and the three AHA presidents are invited. The editor and vice president, research, may invite others. All attendees are free to participate in discussions.

As an AHA committee, the Board of Editors is required to submit an annual report to the vice president, research. The editor’s or co-editors’ annual report fulfills this requirement. The vice president has the authority to charge the Board of Editors with tasks. The vice president routinely delegates this authority to the editor or co-editors and expects not to assign tasks except in unusual circumstances.

Associate Review Editors

The purpose of the Associate Review Editors (AREs) is to advise and assist the editor or co-editors with the reviews section. Currently, AREs help select books for review, suggest reviewers, and consult on submitted reviews when needed. Roles may change in the future. The editor or co-editors explain expectations to prospective AREs before nominating them.

The AHA executive director is an ex officio member of the Associate Review Editors, primarily to facilitate communication between the journal and the rest of the AHA. The executive director may offer advice. The editor has the authority to ask the executive director to perform the same tasks as other board members (such as suggesting book reviewers). The editor expects not to use it, except in unusual circumstances, because the executive director plays a different role than other members of the board.

As an AHA committee, the Associate Review Editors are required to submit an annual report to the vice president, research. The editor’s or co-editors’ annual report fulfills this requirement. The vice president has the authority to charge the Associate Review Editors with tasks. The vice president routinely delegates this authority to the editor or co-editors and expects not to assign tasks except in unusual circumstances.

Consulting Editors

The purpose of the Consulting Editors is to advise and assist the editor or co-editors with a specific section or special project for the journal. Currently, there are Consulting Editors who assist with journal sections (History Unclassified and #AHRSyllabus), the podcast History in Focus, and with author mentorship and engagement. Roles may change in the future. The editor or co-editors explain expectations to prospective Consulting Editors before nominating them.

The Consulting Editors are expected to submit an annual report to the vice president, research. The editor’s or co-editors’ annual report fulfills this requirement.