Review Guidelines

Plant Perspectives invites original reviews of books, films/documentaries, exhibitions, collections, podcasts and digital/public environmental humanities projects. Reviews in Plant Perspectives aim not only to introduce new scholarly publications and creative works but also to foster critical dialogue across the interdisciplinary field of plant studies. Reviews should therefore assess a work’s scholarly significance and demonstrate its relevance to ongoing conversations in plant studies, environmental humanities and related disciplines. Books and other media / events may be suggested for review by publishers, authors and interested reviewers. Unsolicited reviews are not normally accepted.

 

Books

Book reviews published in Plant Perspectives should provide a thoughtful, scholarly and accessible critical assessment of recently published works relevant to the journal’s scope. Reviews should move beyond summary and use a critical approach to evaluate the book’s contribution to interdisciplinary plant studies and the environmental humanities, while remaining accessible to readers from diverse academic backgrounds and general audiences.

 

Films/Documentaries

Reviews of films and documentaries should present an original, critical engagement with the work, moving beyond plot summary to offer a sustained scholarly analysis. Reviews should situate the work within its broader historical context focusing on social, cultural, political and environmental dimensions as they relate to plant studies. Reviews should include a balanced consideration of aesthetic, formal and theoretical concerns such as key scenes, structure, visual composition, cinematography, editing, sound and other elements.

 

Exhibitions

Exhibition reviews should offer a critical and scholarly analysis that connects the show to relevant scholarly and artistic contexts rather than describing or summarising the works. Reviews should analyse the curation of the exhibition by considering how curatorial strategies lend meaning to it and shape visitor experience. Specific consideration should be given to theoretical lens, main arguments, artwork groupings, installations, spatial design, gallery didactics, wayfinding, wall colour and lighting. Reviewers should reference selected images included in the exhibition press kit and may also use their own photographs.

 

General Guidelines

1. Length

• Reviews should be 1400–1500 words, including references.
• Reviews failing to meet or exceeding the recommended word count will normally be returned to the author for editing or revision prior to review.

2. Critical Engagement

• Reviews should adopt a critical and analytical approach substantiated through close textual analysis rather than providing a summary.
• Consider the work’s central arguments, theoretical framework, methodology, strengths, limitations, originality and overall contribution to scholarship, while articulating the reviewer’s own critical perspective.
• Well-written reviews should include close textual analysis with references to the text/creative work.
• We encourage the author's own voice to be integrated throughout the review to advance their individual interpretation and evaluation of the work.

3. Position within Current Scholarship

• Every review should include at least one substantive paragraph situating the work within recent scholarship.
• Discuss how the book contributes to, extends, challenges, or reorients current debates in interdisciplinary plant studies, environmental humanities, literary studies, history, geography, anthropology or other relevant fields.

4. Use of References

• We prefer limited references and footnotes/endnotes.
• However, reviewers are encouraged to engage with relevant scholarship through judicious and appropriate in-text citations, as needed.
• A reference list should be included for all cited works and should follow the Plant Perspectives style guide. References are included within the overall word count.

5. Quotations

• Direct quotations from the book or work should be used sparingly and only where they illuminate key arguments or distinctive aspects of the work.
• Long quotations and block quotations should be avoided.
• References to scholarship beyond the work under review should be limited to what is necessary to contextualise the review.

6. Style and Accessibility

• Reviews should be written in clear, engaging prose suitable for the journal’s broad interdisciplinary readership, including academics, students, practitioners and interested general readers.
• Avoid unnecessary jargon and explain specialist terminology where appropriate.

7. Formatting and Submission

• Reviews should follow the Plant Perspectives Author Guidelines and Style Guide.
• Manuscripts should be submitted as Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) files to facilitate editorial review and copyediting.

8. Author Information

• Please include a brief biographical note (2–3 sentences) stating your current position, institutional affiliation and research interests relevant to the review.
• Please email the review directly to the reviews editors, Kristan Hanson, kmhanson2020@gmail.com ; and Subarna De, de@rug.nl

 

Timeline

Authors have sixty days to complete their review upon receipt of the book or text, or after commissioning in the case of non-text media. Should this timeframe be unachievable, please contact the reviews editors at your earliest convenience. Failure to submit a commissioned review may impact future opportunities to publish with the journal.

 

Special Issues

All special issue book review requests should be emailed to the book reviews editors. Special issue editors should reach out to the review editors after their special issue is accepted by the Plant Perspectives journal editors. Only solicited reviews commissioned by special issue editors will be considered for special issues. Special issue editors should recommend reviewers and solicit reviews, copying the review editors into communications. The timeline for requests should be at least 6–8 months prior to publication. All the reviews will follow the standard review guidelines of the journal as stated above.