Editorial Guidelines for Social Science History

Adopted December 18, 2023

Publications Committee (Claire Laurier Decoteau, Fiona Greenland, J. David Hacker (chair), Ho-fung Hung, Joshua MacFadyen, and Ana Villarreal Montemayor).

  • Editors should attempt to reach consensus on all decisions.
  • While consensus is a worthy goal, it is not always possible. How to resolve a lack of consensus will depend on a manuscript’s stage in the submission process.
    • First-time submissions, prior to peer review
      • To maximize inclusiveness and minimize possible biases, there must be consensus among all editors before desk rejecting a manuscript.
      • If any editor wishes to have a manuscript peer reviewed, it should be peer reviewed. First-time submissions without a consensus of editors, however, should receive a minimum of three peer reviews.
      • The managing editor should make a technical check of all new submissions and alert editors to manuscripts that exceed maximum word counts, maximum numbers of tables and figures, etc. All editors should agree with the subsequent course of action, whether to: (1) encourage the author to resubmit with fewer words, tables, etc.; or (2) send out the manuscript for review in its current form.
    • First-time submissions, after peer review
      • After peer review, all editorial decisions can be made, as needed, by a majority vote of the editors. In cases of majority decisions to reject, the dissenting editor may ask for an opinion from a member(s) of the Editorial Board to assist with the deliberative process over a manuscript but should do so only when decisions are truly split (e.g., when one editor is opposed to publication, one is in favor of publication, and one is undecided, not when two editors are opposed to publication, and one is in favor).
      • Revise and resubmit submissions, after second round of peer review. All editorial decisions can be made, as needed, by a majority vote of the editors.
      • Only a majority of the editors, with written notice to all three, can require an additional revision and resubmission, and only through EM.
    • The three editors shall agree explicitly, either verbally or by email, on whether one, two, or all three will sign each letter of acceptance, revise/resubmit, or rejection for submissions.


SSHA Town Hall, Monday March 25

The SSHA officers invite SSHA members to attend a Zoom town hall on Monday March 25 from 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm EST to discuss and answer questions about the four Executive Committee motions passed on December 20, 2023, and February 8, 2024. The zoom link is here (Meeting ID: 895 1708 6578 | Password: 602250).

These motions concern our association journal, Social Science History, specifically editorial procedure guidelines, journal scope and the editor model. These motions have been posted on the SSHA website.

2024 Annual Conference Submissions Now Open

SSHA is now accepting paper and session submissions for the 2024 Annual Conference. Please visit our submission portal ssha2024.ssha.org to submit a paper or session proposal by March 22, 2024.

Submission Portal

SSHA Call for Papers

50th Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association

Toronto, ON, Canada, October 31 - November 3, 2024.

Trust and Distrust of Historical Sources in the Digital Age

SSHA Call for Papers PDF

Supporting SSHA

Join Our Listserv

SSHA Twitter Feed