The Journal of Social History publishes articles and reviews in all fields of social history, regardless of period and region. It seeks particularly to promote work in new topics in social history, where it has established a distinguished record during its 40-year existence. New topics involve both the key facets of the field: exploring the histories and impacts of ordinary people and exploring aspects of the human experience beyond the more conventional historical staples. It also encourages discussions of key analytical and methodological issues, including comparative issues and issues of periodization. The Journal has also been active in bringing sociohistorical work in regional specializations, such as African or Latin American history, to a wider audience within the field. Periodically, the journal offers thematic issues that advance its basic purposes, including discussions of larger trajectories within the field itself.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.
Note: This article is a review of another work, such as a book, film, musical composition, etc. The original work is not included in the purchase of this review.