Our hope for the Mediapolis review section is to publish work that takes advantage of our format as a web-only publication. That means we seek to publish work that accomplishes the goals of a traditional review – what is the overall takeaway from the book, what is its main contribution, what are its strengths/weaknesses/highlights, etc. – while also serving as an occasion for the reviewer to reflect on how the book (or film, television program, or other media object) relates to and refracts trends in the field (including blindspots in the field, for example).
In a traditional print journal, book review word lengths are often set with an eye toward differentiating them from feature articles and essays. We aren’t operating under the same constraints of space, and thus have considerable latitude with the reviews we publish: a short 500-word blurb could run alongside a 2,000 word reflection.
Also, authors should bear in mind that – unlike traditional print journals – Mediapolis does not assume a specialist readership. Where possible, reviews should be written in such a way as to introduce the work in question to as broad an audience as possible. Our goal with the site in general and with the reviews in particular is to facilitate exploration of new ideas across the spectrum of urban scholarship.
As with all other articles published on the site, reviews should adhere to the site’s style guidelines: see this page for more information.