HUMANITY & SOCIETY
Humanity & Society, the official journal of the Association for Humanist Sociology, was first published in 1977 and has been published quarterly since 1978. Humanity & Society is a peer-reviewed Sage journal with abstracts of published articles appearing in Sociological Abstracts. It features “humanist sociology,” which is broadly defined as a sociology that views people not only as products of social forces but also as agents in their lives and the world. We are committed to a sociology that contributes to a more humane, equal, and just society.
Additional information, including copies of previous volumes is also available at http://has.sagepub.com
Humanity & Society publishes articles on a wide variety of topics that include but are not limited to: studies of inequality (class, race, and/or gender); war, peace, and international relations; aging and gerontology; environmental sociology; globalization; gender and sexuality; health and mental health; social theory; sociology of knowledge and science, and linguistics; social psychology; teaching and sociology practice; social change, humanism and human rights; crime and deviance; ethnic and intergroup relations, and others
The editors cordially invite you to submit your work for possible publication in Humanity & Society. In addition to publishing articles, we also publish action notes (which describe activism the writer has participated in or observed), book review essays, multimedia review essays, and provocative “final thoughts.” In keeping with the values of the membership, the journal uses an open peer-review process where authors and reviewers are identified. In our view, this does not diminish the rigor, integrity, and validity of the peer-review process. Rather, we believe it creates a more open and honest dialogue between authors and reviewers. We find this helps to generate the kind of constructive criticism that is most conducive to improving the article, as opposed to the “destructive criticism” that too easily occurs in more traditional double-blind peer-review processes. In this light, the editorial staff is fully committed to mentoring new scholars to facilitate their professional development.
Submit your article electronically at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/has. Please follow the instructions for creating an account. Then the system will walk you through a step-by-step process for manuscript submission. Authors will benefit by reviewing our guidelines for contributors.
Action notes are “calls to action” based on your social observations or discussions around how to put theory into action. Action Notes are half of the length of research papers (approximately 5,000 words, including all materials) and will be peer-reviewed. Please send your Action Notes to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/has
Humanity & Society is a different journal—one imbued with the action and hope of humanist philosophy. At the end of each issue we hope to pique reader interest with a “Final Thought” Page. This may come in the form of a provocative image that carries a sociological or social change message, an interview with a sociologist talking about her/his craft, or even a cartoon analysis of our social world. We want these ventures to be provocative, humorous, even perplexing. We view the journal as a kind of larger curriculum vitae for humanist sociology. As the Latin translation of the term means “curriculum of my life,” we view H&S as a journal that breathes life into academic inquiry.
Please submit your “Final Thought” (image, interview, cartoon, etc.) along with a description and/or interpretation of the final thought (200 words maximum) and your biography (200 words maximum) explaining how the image/idea presented is relevant to your life. Submit at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/has
Please direct your inquiries and ideas to:
David G. Embrick, Editor-In-Chief, firstname.lastname@example.org
Kasey Henricks, Managing Editor, at email@example.com
Kathleen Fitzgerald, Book Review Editor, at firstname.lastname@example.org
Paul R. Ketchum, Multimedia Editor, at email@example.com
Dustin Hiles, Final Thought Editor, firstname.lastname@example.org
Greta Pennell, University of Indianapolis
Matthew Hughey, University of Connecticut
Melissa Weiner, College of the Holy Cross
Woody Doane, University of Hartford
Janine Schipper, Northern Arizona University
Shawn Bingham, University of South Florida
Corey Dolgon, Stonehill College
Jill Bystydzienski, The Ohio State University
Joti Sekhon, Winston-Salem State University
Alan Spector, Purdue University Calumet
Mary Chayko, Rutgers University
Daina Harvey, College of the Holy Cross
Tony Ladd, Loyola University at New Orleans
James Pennell, University of Indiana at Indianapolis
Alfreed DeFreece, Roosevelt University
David Brunsma, Virginia Tech
Bhoomi K. Thakore, Northwestern University
Johnny Williams, Trinity College
Rebecca Hensley, Southeastern Louisiana University
Saher Selod, Simmons University
Jeff Torlina, Utah Valley University
Shirley Jackson, Southern Connecticut State University
Louise Seamster, Duke University
Victor Ray, University of Tennessee
Mary Erdmans, Case Western University
Stephen Adair, Central Connecticut State University
Hephzibah Strmic-Pawl, Coastal Carolina University
Bilal Dabir Sekou, University of Hartford
Shelley White, Worchester State University
J. Talmadge Wright, Loyola University Chicago
Charles Koeber, Wichita State University
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS*
Modified January 2014
Thank you for agreeing to review for Humanity & Society. Reviewing for the journal is an important professional service. While we hope you gain intellectual satisfaction from helping the author(s) improve her, his or their paper, we also recognize and appreciate the generous gift of your time. We suggest prompt reviews within three weeks are tremendously helpful to both the author and Humanity & Society.
Please understand that Humanity & Society, in line with its mission as the journal of a humanist sociology organization, is a non-blind peer-reviewed journal. Thus, the process is one where authors and reviewers are both identified. In our view, this does not diminish the rigor, integrity, and validity of the peer-review process. Rather, we believe it creates a more open and honest dialogue between authors and reviewers. We find this helps to generate the kind of constructive criticism that is most conducive to improving the article, as opposed to the “destructive criticism” that too easily occurs in more traditional double-blind peer-review processes. In this spirit, reviewers are asked to participate in the organization’s commitment to mentoring new scholars to facilitate their professional development.
As a reviewer, your priority is first and foremost to help the author(s) improve her, his, or their paper. Although we understand that only a fraction of submitted papers will ultimately be accepted, we view the review process as one that fundamentally helps authors to reach their full potential, be it theoretical or empirical, with their paper.
Reviews should follow a clear, comprehensible format. After reading the paper carefully, sit down and write the review. A good review is often 1,000 words or less, and provides a valuable perspective on the paper.
Begin by identifying the paper’s aims, as you see them (this may differ from the author’s statement), clearly stating what the paper argues, and what its contribution is meant to be. This should be one or two sentences that help the editor and author know whether the paper’s main point has come across. In addition, note the strengths of the paper (even if you do not think the paper as a whole is strong).
Next, present the comments you see as most central to an effective revision of the paper. The core of the review should identify whether: 1) the research question contributes to larger theory, 2) the analysis actually answers the research question, and 3) the conclusions flow from the analyses. Identifying weaknesses can help authors craft more fully developed papers, which sometimes means reframing the piece theoretically, refocusing the question, or reinterpreting the analysis.
Here, you want to provide clear advice about how the author might address the problems you have identified or the questions you have raised. For example, if you feel the author is missing crucial references that would help them build a better argument, provide those references; if you think the author needs to provide more information about methods, explain what is missing; if you have problems with the analyses or feel that they are not persuasive enough, explain how the analyses could become more persuasive.
Please be aware that reviews that are non-constructive, engage in non-useful personal attacks on the author(s), or extremely limited in term of constructive feedback are unlikely to be passed on to the authors. This said, reviewers need not be overly specific, nor do they need to provide line-by-line editing. Instead, ensuring the argument is sound is the better use of reviewers’ time and attention. The main goal of the reviewer is to improve the paper and provide a fair assessment that will help the author(s) in the long run.
Thank you so much for serving as a reviewer for this journal!
David G. Embrick, Editor-in-Chief
Kasey Henricks, Managing Editor
* These guidelines rely on the contributions found in Gender & Society, Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, and Societies Without Borders.
MULTIMEDIA REVIEW GUIDELINES
Recognizing the multiple modalities of communication and how presentations enhance our sociological understanding of the complex realities of the 21st century, Humanity & Society, the journal of the Association for Humanist Sociology, announces the introduction of media reviews. We invite reviewers of sociological messages in photography, web-based art, websites, popular films and documentaries, radio broadcasts, and multimedia presentations. We also invite suggestions for media reviews. (Please note that book reviews should be sent to our book review editor at email@example.com.)
As a generalist sociology journal, Humanity & Society publishes media reviews on a wide variety of topics. We are particularly interested in media presentations that are relevant to humanist sociology. Humanist sociology is broadly defined as a sociology that views people not only as products of social forces but also as agents in their lives and the world. We are committed to a sociology that contributes to a more humane, equal, and just society.
The journal welcomes reviewers from diverse backgrounds and with diverse perspectives, including activists, graduate students, and practitioners in fields other than sociology. Potential reviewers are also encouraged to contact the Media Editor, Paul R. Ketchum, with suggestions for reviews in their areas of interest and expertise.
Agreement to prepare a review for Humanity & Society assumes that the reviewer has no substantial material or personal connection to the material or to the producer. Reviews in violation of this guideline will not be published.
Written submissions should not exceed 1,000 words. Reviews should also include your:
And the titles and dates published, along with URLs for electronic and multimedia presentations. If you think any additional contextual information would be useful, please include it with your submission/review.
To review for Humanity & Society, or to offer suggestions for reviews, please contact our Media Editor, Paul R. Ketchum, with a brief summary of your interest and prior reviewing experience (firstname.lastname@example.org). We look forward to hearing from you and Thank You for your contributions!