Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your agreeing to review for Sport in History.

We do not wish to dictate specific kinds of questions to be answered or to demand mechanical approaches to analysis. The structure and content we leave to you, and hope for innovate reviews.

The overriding question your review should answer is "Have you written meaningfully about the book? Does this review reflect any real contact with the substance of the volume? These questions can best be answered affirmatively if the review contains certain items:

1. Data on author:

(other books or articles the author has written that are relevant to the topic).

2. Author's purpose or thesis.

3. How the author accomplishes the purpose or proves the thesis.

4. Your evaluation or criticism.

Avoid any explicit recommendations of the book (readers will determine whether the book is worth reading by your criticism).

Please do not provide a blow by blow recounting of chapters or chapter headings, nor paraphrase the author's synopsis of his work. Your summary of the book's contents can be handled through 2 & 3 above.

The average length for reviews is about 1000 words per title but your review may be shorter or longer than this as you feel appropriate.

When you come to prepare your manuscript, please have it word processed in MS Word (or RTF) and e-mail it to me at: richard.cox@manchester.ac.uk. A publisher's slip is probably enclosed with the book; please keep this at hand and use it to provide the following details:

At the head of the review: author, title, place of publication, publisher, date of publication (as given on publisher's slip if different from copyright date), numbers of Roman and Arabic pages, hardbacks and paperback prices, and hardback and paperback ISBNs. Example:

Allen Guttmann, Women's Sport: A History, New York, Columbia University Press, 1991, Pp. x + 399. £18.50. ISBN 0-123-4567.

At the foot of the review: your name and institutional affiliation or location, thus:

Richard Cox

University of Manchester