Editors Choice: Still Playing Catch-Up

As I was flipping through the February 2014 issue of the American Historical Review I was encouraged to see that American historical profession’s flagship journal seems to be doing a pretty decent job of publishing the impressive work of female historians. Three out of its four main articles were written by women and four out of the five books in its “Featured Reviews” section were also by women. That’s encouraging. But what about the rest of the February issue? Figuring out how many women are in the 176 contributors for this single issue is a lot harder. And what about not just this issue, but all five issues it publishes annually? And what about not just this year, but every year since its inception in 1895?

Looking at gender representation in the American Historical Review is exactly the kind of historical project that lends itself well towards digital analysis. Collecting individual author information from 120 years of publication history would take an enormous amount of tedious labor. Fortunately the information is already online.

Read the full post here.

Source: Editors Choice: Still Playing Catch-Up

This content was selected for Digital Humanities Now by Editor-in-Chief Lindsey Bestebreurtje based on nominations by Editors-at-Large: César Viana Teixeira, Ester Rincon Calero, James O'Sullivan, Dana Bublitz, Beth Secrist, Amy Williams, Elizabeth, Michael Simeone, Dale Russell, Aisha Clarke, Raymond Maxwell, Sarah Canfield Fuller, Andrew Hyde, Laurie Allen, Alexander Czmiel