How to Publish Your Research: A Step-by-Step Guide for Historians.

by

Here’s how I’ve come to understand the path to publishing research in history. I’m sharing this because it feels essential, not just as something we should do, but as a vital part of what it means to be a historian. Our work isn’t complete until we share it, until our hard-won insights and discoveries become part of the larger conversation about our past. This isn’t always easy; turning deep archival dives and unique analytical thinking into a polished article or book can truly feel like a maze. My aim here is to lay out that path clearly, offering a comprehensive guide no matter where you are in your career.

This isn’t generic advice at all. Instead, it’s a focused look at the specific challenges and strategies involved in historical scholarship. From getting your manuscript just right to navigating the often-intimidating peer review process, and finally celebrating its acceptance, I’m breaking down each step with practical examples and clear directions. My hope is that your valuable research will find its rightful place, contributing meaningfully to the scholarly dialogue.

Phase 1: Building the Foundation – Crafting Your Scholarly Contribution

Before I even think about sending something out, there’s crucial groundwork to do. This initial phase involves a lot of introspection, strategic planning, and careful preparation. It’s about making sure my research isn’t just solid, but also ideally positioned for publication.

1. Pinpointing My Research’s Contribution and Niche

Every successful publication, for me, starts with a crystal-clear understanding of what intellectual contribution I’m making. For us historians, this means identifying precisely how my work engages with, challenges, or expands the existing historiography.

  • Defining My Argument’s Core: What’s the single most important, original insight my research offers? For instance, instead of thinking, “This is about the French Revolution,” I’d refine it to something like, “This paper argues that shifting urban food networks, rather than purely intellectual shifts, fueled radicalization in revolutionary Paris.” That specificity helps shape my abstract and introduction.
  • Locating My Historiographical Intervention: I need to pinpoint the specific scholarly conversation I’m jumping into. Am I offering a new interpretation of a well-covered topic, bringing in new primary sources that force a re-evaluation, or connecting areas that haven’t been linked before? If I were studying 19th-century American slavery, I might identify a gap in scholarship regarding specific familial strategies of resistance in particular Deep South counties, carving out a new niche for myself.
  • Assessing My Audience and Impact: Who needs to know about my research? Is it a niche contribution for specialists in a very specific subfield, or does it have broader implications for social history, political history, or even public history? This assessment really helps me decide where to publish.

2. Manuscript Preparation: Writing for Publication

The quality of my writing is absolutely paramount. Historical scholarship demands precision, clarity, and a compelling narrative, all while maintaining rigorous argumentation.

  • Structuring for Impact: Typically, a journal article or a book chapter follows a standard, logical flow, which I adhere to:
    • Introduction: This is where I hook the reader, state my main argument (thesis), briefly outline my methodology, and preview the paper’s structure.
    • Historiographical Review: Here, I engage with existing scholarship, clearly identifying where my intervention lies. I don’t just summarize; I analyze and critique.
    • Methodology/Sources: I explain how I conducted my research and what primary sources underpin my claims. Transparency about limitations is key.
    • Body Paragraphs/Chapters: This is where I present my evidence, analyze it, and directly link it back to my argument. Each section or chapter builds logically on the previous one.
    • Conclusion: I restate my argument in new language, summarize key findings, and discuss broader implications or avenues for future research. I always make sure not to introduce new information here.
  • Clarity and Conciseness: I try to eliminate academic jargon unless it’s absolutely necessary and clearly defined. My sentences need to be direct and easy to follow. I avoid overly complex sentence structures that might obscure meaning. For example, instead of something like, “The epistemic paradigm prevailing within the early modern mercantile sphere manifested profound implications for nascent proto-capitalist systems,” I’d write, “The dominant way of thinking about trade in the early modern period significantly shaped early capitalist systems.”
  • Evidence and Analysis: Every single claim I make has to be supported by solid evidence from primary or secondary sources. It’s not enough to just present evidence; I have to analyze it, explaining how it supports my argument. If I cite a 17th-century diary entry describing harvest failures, I then have to explain how this specific entry illuminates broader economic stress or social unrest.
  • Adhering to Citation Style: As historians, we primarily use Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) notes and bibliography. Getting this right is non-negotiable for me. Software like Zotero or Mendeley has been incredibly helpful. Consistent and accurate citations not only prevent accusations of plagiarism but also make it easy for readers to verify my sources.
  • Self-Editing and Seeking Feedback: After drafting, I always try to step away from my manuscript for a few days. Then, I return with fresh eyes, looking for logical gaps, repetitive phrasing, awkward sentences, and grammatical errors. Crucially, I make sure to get feedback from trusted colleagues, mentors, or peers. I ask them to identify my weakest arguments, points of confusion, and areas where evidence might be insufficient. This pre-submission review is truly invaluable.

3. Choosing My Publication Venue: Strategic Targeting

This, for me, is one of the most critical decisions. An article on medieval demography submitted to a journal focused on modern diplomatic history is almost guaranteed to be rejected.

  • Journal Articles vs. Book Chapters vs. Monographs:
    • Journal Articles: These are shorter (typically 8,000-12,000 words), focused arguments. They’re ideal for me when I want to present new findings quickly, test a new argument, or publish a discrete piece of a larger project. I target specialized journals in my field (e.g., The Journal of Economic History, Gender & History, American Historical Review for broader impact).
    • Book Chapters: These are often invited or submitted to edited collections. They allow for deeper exploration than a journal article but are still part of a broader intellectual conversation defined by the collection’s theme. Their prestige really depends on the editor and publisher.
    • Monographs (Books): These are longer (60,000+ words), comprehensive arguments, typically based on a revised dissertation or extensive new research. They allow for sustained, complex arguments and foundational contributions to a field. For these, I target university presses or, if I’m aiming for a wider audience, trade presses.
  • Journal Selection Criteria:
    • Scope and Focus: Does my research align perfectly with the journal’s stated aims and scope? I always read their “About” section and browse recent issues.
    • Target Audience: Who actually reads this journal? Specialists? General historians?
    • Editorial Board: Are leading scholars in my field represented? This tells me a lot about its prestige and influence.
    • Impact Factor/Prestige (with caution): While sometimes useful, impact factor isn’t the only measure of quality. A highly specialized journal read by a small, influential group might have a low impact factor but be incredibly important for my niche. I prioritize fit over arbitrary metrics.
    • Submission Guidelines: I read and adhere thoroughly to their specific formatting, length, word count, citation style, and anonymization requirements. Ignoring these is an immediate red flag for editors.
  • Book Publisher Selection:
    • List and Series: Does the press publish books in my specific field or a relevant series?
    • Reputation: University presses (e.g., Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, University of Chicago Press) are the gold standard for scholarly monographs.
    • Acquisition Editors: I identify the commissioning editor responsible for history or my specific subfield. They are my very first point of contact.

Phase 2: The Submission and Review Process – Entering the Peer-Reviewed Arena

Once my manuscript is polished and I’ve chosen my target venue, the real journey begins: submission, peer review, and revision. This is often the most challenging but ultimately rewarding phase for me.

4. Crafting the Compelling Submission Package

A strong submission package goes beyond just the manuscript; it frames my work for the editor and reviewers.

  • The Cover Letter (Journal Articles): This is my pitch.
    • Address: To the Editor-in-Chief.
    • Purpose: State my intent to submit the enclosed manuscript (giving its title).
    • Argument & Contribution: I clearly articulate my article’s central argument, key findings, and how it contributes specifically to the journal’s audience and existing scholarship. “My article, ‘Beyond the Battlefield: Women’s Economic Agency in Civil War Richmond,’ challenges prevailing narratives by demonstrating… and engages specifically with recent debates in [Journal Name] on…”
    • Originality/Prior Publication: I confirm the manuscript is original, not under review elsewhere, and hasn’t been previously published.
    • Anonymity: If required, I confirm that the manuscript has been anonymized for blind peer review.
    • Word Count: I state the word count (including footnotes).
    • Contact Information: My full details.
  • Abstract (Critical for both Journal Articles and Book Proposals): This is a concise summary of my research (typically 150-250 words).
    • Problem/Question: What historical problem or question does my research address?
    • Argument/Thesis: What’s my main intellectual claim?
    • Methodology/Sources: Briefly, how did I arrive at my findings?
    • Key Findings: What are the most important results?
    • Contribution/Implications: Why does this matter to the field?
    • Example for an article: “This article re-examines the political economy of the early modern Muscovite fur trade, arguing that indigenous reindeer herders were not passive victims of colonial extraction but active agents who strategically manipulated trade routes and market demands to preserve communal autonomy. Drawing on previously unexamined Siberian archival documents and re-interpreting diplomatic correspondence, it uncovers a sophisticated network of localized resistance that fundamentally reshaped Muscovy’s expansionist ambitions in the tundra, challenging established narratives of imperial dominance.”
  • Keywords: I choose 3-5 keywords that accurately describe my article’s content. These really help with discoverability.
  • Author Bio: A brief (50-100 words) biographical statement for the journal’s “Contributors” section.

5. The Peer Review Process: A Dialogue, Not a Judgment

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, in my experience. It’s a rigorous, often blind, process where experts in my field evaluate my work for originality, methodological soundness, argumentative rigor, and overall contribution.

  • The Editor’s Role: The editor first screens my manuscript for fit and basic quality. If it passes, it’s sent to 2-3 anonymous peer reviewers.
  • Blind Review: For history journals, this is typically “double-blind,” meaning reviewers don’t know who I am, and I don’t know who the reviewers are. I make sure my manuscript is scrubbed of any identifying information (e.g., phrases like “In my previous work…” references).
  • Timelines: This process can take anywhere from 2 months to over a year, depending on the journal and how available reviewers are. Patience is absolutely essential here.
  • The Decision Letter: When the reviews are complete, the editor issues a decision:
    • Accept: This is rare, usually for invited submissions or exceptionally strong, minor-revision-ready manuscripts.
    • Accept with Minor Revisions: Excellent news! I address all reviewer comments thoroughly.
    • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions): This is the most common outcome for quality historical articles. It means the article has potential, but requires significant work. I view this as a real opportunity for substantial improvement.
    • Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit: Indicates significant potential but also major flaws. It usually means I’m almost starting fresh with revisions.
    • Reject: The article simply isn’t suitable for the journal in its current form or at all. This, I’ve learned, is a common part of the scholarly journey.

6. Responding to Reviewers: Strategic Revision

Receiving peer review feedback can be daunting, speaking from experience. My response, however, is a demonstration of my scholarship and professionalism.

  • Initial Reaction: I allow myself an initial emotional reaction (relief, frustration, excitement), but then I set it aside.
  • Systematic Approach:
    • I print all reviews.
    • I read them carefully multiple times. I look for recurring points.
      I create a detailed “Response to Reviewers” document. This is my formal letter to the editor, outlining how I addressed each comment from each reviewer.
    • I categorize comments: Theoretical, methodological, empirical, stylistic, structural.
    • I am always courteous and professional, even if I subtly disagree. “Reviewer A raises an important point about the generalizability of my findings to other regional contexts. While the scope of this paper is limited to…”
    • I address EVERY comment: Even if I don’t make the suggested change, I explain why I didn’t. “Reviewer B suggested incorporating additional archival material from the French National Archives. While I agree this would enrich the paper, given the journal’s word limit and the focus of this particular argument, I have instead chosen to strengthen the analysis of the existing material.”
    • I explain how I made changes: “As suggested by Reviewer C, I have expanded the discussion of Marxist historiography on page 7 and revised the conclusion to reflect this broader engagement.”
    • I highlight “New Material”: If I added new sections or significant analysis, I point this out.
  • Making Revisions:
    • Track Changes: I always use Microsoft Word’s “Track Changes” feature so the editor can easily see my revisions.
    • Focused Revisions: I don’t rewrite the entire paper unless explicitly advised. I focus on the issues raised.
    • Strengthen Arguments: Reviewers often highlight logical gaps or areas where evidence is thin. This is my chance to buttress my argument.
    • Improve Clarity and Flow: Often, reviewers point out confusing passages. I restructure, rephrase, or add transitions.
  • Resubmission: I send the revised manuscript (with track changes and a clean version if requested), the detailed “Response to Reviewers” letter, and an updated cover letter (if needed) back to the journal.

Phase 3: Post-Acceptance and Beyond – From Manuscript to Published Work

Earning an acceptance letter is a significant achievement, but the journey isn’t quite over. Final steps ensure my paper is prepared for publication and widely accessible.

7. The Production Stage: Turning Manuscript into Article

After acceptance, my manuscript enters the production pipeline.

  • Copyediting: The journal’s copyeditor will meticulously check my manuscript for grammatical errors, punctuation, spelling, consistency (e.g., capitalization, hyphenation), and adherence to the journal’s house style. This isn’t about content; it’s purely about polish.
  • Proofreading: I will receive proofs (typically PDF) of my article, often typeset exactly as it will appear in the journal. This is my absolute last chance to catch any residual errors introduced during the typesetting process. Critically, I do not make substantive changes to my article at this stage. I’m only looking for typos or formatting errors. Major changes are expensive and will typically be rejected.
  • Image Permissions (if applicable): If my article includes images, maps, or graphs, I am responsible for obtaining and clearing all necessary permissions for publication. This often involves fees and takes time, so I start this early!
  • Open Access (Optional but Increasingly Common): Many journals offer an Open Access (OA) option, and many funders now require it. This often involves paying an Article Processing Charge (APC) to make my article freely available immediately upon publication. I weigh the benefits of wider readership against the cost involved.

8. Promotion and Dissemination: Amplifying My Impact

Publishing scholarly work isn’t just about its existence; it’s about its reach and impact for me.

  • Sharing with My Network: I announce the publication on social media (e.g., Twitter/X, Mastodon, Bluesky, LinkedIn), send an email to relevant colleagues, and update my personal website or department profile.
  • Institutional Repository: Most universities have institutional repositories where I can deposit a version of my article (often the accepted manuscript or a pre-print, depending on publisher policy). This significantly increases discoverability.
  • Professional Websites: I update my profiles on platforms like Academia.edu or ResearchGate (always respecting copyright rules).
  • Conferences and Presentations: Presenting my research at conferences before and after publication generates buzz and feedback. Mentioning my forthcoming or recently published work can direct interested scholars to my article.
  • Blog Posts/Public-Facing Writing: I consider writing a short, accessible blog post about my research for a non-specialist audience. Many historical associations and university departments host blogs, which can broaden my impact beyond academia.
  • Media Engagement (for relevant topics): If my research has broader societal implications or touches on current events, I consider how it might be of interest to journalists. I prepare myself to explain my work clearly and concisely to a broader audience.

Conclusion: The Historian’s Enduring Legacy

Publishing my research feels like a critical act of scholarly citizenship. It transforms my isolated diligence into collective knowledge, allowing my unique interpretations and hard-won insights to enrich the ongoing historical conversation. The journey from a nascent idea to a published work is demanding, characterized by rigorous intellectual effort, meticulous attention to detail, and resilience in the face of critique. However, by understanding and strategically navigating each phase – from foundational preparation to the intricacies of peer review and the final steps of dissemination – I empower my historical research to achieve its fullest potential, leaving an indelible mark on the discipline and shaping our understanding of our shared past. My voice, backed by rigorous scholarship, is an essential contribution to make.