Book Review Submissions
-
Double reviews bringing two titles into a conversation with each other (2,000 – 3,000 words)
-
Single reviews (1,500 – 2,000 words)
Reviews should cover recent publication(s). We also welcome reviews of non-English language publications. It is important that authors take a critical stance on their chosen title(s), providing a thoughtful account of the text(s) and their position alongside other media studies scholarship rather than a general summary. Reviews may be motivated by current trends in film and media studies but can also tackle issues that remain overlooked within the disciplines. The purpose of the book review section is to inform NECSUS readers about new scholarship in media studies and to support critical engagement with published work. Authors should not be connected to the writers of the books they are reviewing in either personal or professional terms. We do not allow reviews in which the author is involved in the book, either as an editor, contributor, or translator.
Follow general style guidelines as explicated here.
Additional book review guidelines:
-
Focus on recent publication(s) (should be published within the last three years) within the broad scope of media studies.
-
Position the publication(s) within existing scholarship.
-
Take a critical stance towards the work (e.g., choose one or more issues/themes to structure the review) and avoid a chapter-by-chapter descriptive summary.
-
On the first mention of each book, please include the full title in italics and the bibliographic information in parentheses.
-
When quoting from the book(s) being reviewed, use in-text references in the following manner: (p. 55) or (pp. 55-65). All other references should follow the reference style here.
-
Include your name and affiliation at the end of the review (no short bios needed)
Festival Review Submissions
The NECSUS film festival review section publishes critical writing on film festivals. It offers a platform for writing that falls between the fast and prolific genre of individual festival reports and the slow and rigorous labor of film festival research. Rather than merely reviewing the latest festival edition, contributors are asked to take a critical distance and reflect upon one or more thematic issues that are relevant to the professional field and/or for media studies. Reviews can be motivated by current affairs but should also tackle issues that tend to remain hidden in the midst of festival buzz. Contributors should not be employed by the festival they are reviewing.
Follow general style guidelines as explicated here.
Additional festival review guidelines:
- Maximum 2,500 words
- Focus on up to 3 film festivals
- Include short introductions of the festivals discussed
- Choose one or more issues/themes to structure your critical review
- Provide URLs of the mentioned festivals
- Include your name and affiliation at the end of the review (no short bios needed)
If you are interested in writing a festival review please contact the section editors Marijke de Valck and Antoine Damiens using our contact form.
Exhibition Review Submissions
The exhibition review section in NECSUS publishes critical writing on cinema, visual, and media arts exhibitions. It aims to offer a platform for writing that ranges from academic to critical approaches, encompassing the contributions of scholars, curators, artists, and practitioners. This two-fold approach intends to open up a discussion space between essayistic and artistic perspectives.
The section will feature different formats:
- Standard exhibition review (maximum 2,000 words)
- Artist/curator interview detailing specific insight by an artist/curator about the exhibition he/she contributed to (maximum 4,000 words)
- ‘Exhibition tour with’ – visiting the exhibition with a person of specific relevance for its realisation, or somebody with important insights in the concepts and themes that are key to the works at hand (maximum 3,000 words)
Guidelines for reviewers:
- Include short introductions of the institution hosting the exhibition as well as the context
- Choose one or more issues/themes to structure your critical review
- Provide a URL for the mentioned exhibition
- When particularly coherent within the text, give up to three suggestions for further reading, of which at least one is an academic source
If you are interested in writing an exhibition review please send inquiries to section editor Miriam de Rosa using our contact form.