- Usage Policy
- Authorship and Copyright
- Redundant Publication and Simultaneous Submission
- Conflicts of Interest
- Submission Guidelines
- Formatting and the CMH Style Guide
- Peer Review
- Manuscript Selection
- Reviewer Selection
- Reviewer Guidelines
- Requests for Reconsideration
- Guidelines for Book Reviews
We welcome the use of our open access resources for private study and research. If you represent an educational institution and would like to use one of the open access resources in a course, we ask that you provide a link rather than uploading the article to your Learning Management System. If you wish to use one of the articles available via subscription in a course reading list, please contact us and we would be happy to arrange for access.
Authorship and Copyright
Authors must be the sole copyright holders of a work or, if the copyright is held by more than one individual, the author submitting the work must have permission from all parties to do so. Publication in Canadian Military History (CMH) requires the submission of a publication agreement.
In the event that a work contains text or images that are held in copyright by a third party, it is the responsibility of the author to obtain permission from the third party copyright holders. Furthermore, third party owned materials must be clearly and accurately identified. Please see the CMH Style Guide for more information.
Redundant Publication and Simultaneous Submission
Manuscripts submitted to CMH should not have been previously published elsewhere nor should they be under simultaneous consideration by any other journal.
Conflicts of Interest
In all disciplines and areas of study, there is the potential for a conflict of interest. Any relationship or activity that may result in a conflict of interest must be fully disclosed. When objectivity and effectiveness cannot be maintained, the activity should be avoided or discontinued.
For complete information regarding the format of the paper and references, please view the CMH Style Guide. Although noncompliance with these standards in the initial submission is not grounds for rejection, it does necessitate revision on the part of the author.
CMH accepts submissions in an electronic format as Microsoft Word documents (.doc or .docx). Use of an alternate file format is not acceptable and authors will be required to resubmit.
To submit an article, please send submissions to our Managing Editor via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Alternatively, articles can be submitted via Scholars Portal; please visit http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh. It will be necessary to create an account in order to submit your work.
Please use an e-mail address which you check on a regular basis, as this will be the primary means of contact.
Prior to submitting your article, please have the following pieces of information available:
- The title of your article
- Your name and institutional affiliation (if applicable)
- Your 100-word abstract
- Up to six keywords that describe the focus or subject matter of your work
- Your article as a .doc or .docx file. Submission length is 10,000 words including notes
Supplemental material such as images and maps should be included alongside the text in a single file if this can be done without a loss of quality. Where including supplemental materials in the main file leads to deterioration in quality, authors should upload these materials separately.
Formatting and the Canadian Military History Style Guide
Adherence to the CMH Style Guide is not mandatory for initial submission. However, it is the responsibility of the author to format the work in accordance with these standards prior to the submission of the revised version.
Please consult the following standards when composing or revising your work:
Canadian Military History uses footnotes in the Chicago style. Please consult the list of references carefully as well as the Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition. Elements in square brackets ([ ]) are mandatory if applicable.
Author, Title of Book [,Edition] (Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of Publication), Page Number.
Terry Copp, The Brigade: The Fifth Canadian Infantry Brigade, 1939–1945 (Stoney Creek, ON: Fortress Publications, 1992), 34.
Edited or Translated Book
Author, Title of Book, Editor or Translator [,Edition] (Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of Publication), Page Number.
Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1942–1943, trans. by Louis P. Lochner (New York: Doubleday, 1948), 23.
Book with More than One Volume
Author, Title of Book Series, Volume Number [: Title of Book] (Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of Publication), Page Number.
C.P. Stacey, The Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Vol. I: Six Years of War (Ottawa, ON: Queen’s Printer, 1956), 19.
Jay Luvaas, “The New School: Major General Sir Patrick McDougall,” in The Education of an Army: British Military Thought, 1815–1940, ed. Jay Luvaas (London: Cassell, 1964), 101.
Book with More than One Author
Author One and Author Two, Title of Book (Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of Publication), Page Number.
J.L. Granatstein and J.M. Hitsman, Broken Promises: A History of Conscription in Canada (Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press, 1977), 12.
Author, “Title of Article,” Title of Journal Volume Number [, Issue Number] (Publication Date): Page Number.
Sir Michael Howard, “Ethics, Deterrence and Strategic Bombing,” The Journal of the RAF Historical Society 14, 1 (1995): 13.
Thesis or Dissertation
Author, “Title of Thesis or Dissertation” (Degree, University Granting Degree, Date of Publication), Page Number.
David A. Wilson, “The Development of Tank-Infantry Co-operation Doctrine in the Canadian Army for the Normandy Campaign of 1944” (MA Thesis, University of New Brunswick, 1992), 23.
Newspaper or Magazine
Author, “Title of Article,” Title of Newspaper/Magazine, Date of Publication, Page Number.
William Marchington, “4000 Casualties in Hong Kong ‘Rough Guess’,“ Globe and Mail, 4 February 1942, 1.
Artist, Title, Date, Medium, Dimensions (in cm.), Collection/Exhibit/Owner.
Jack Shadbolt, Victim, 1947, watercolour and ink on paper, 48.5 x 38.7 cm, artist’s collection.
Writer to Recipient, Date of Letter, in Title of Collection, Editor (Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of Publication), Page Number.
Jane Addams to Woodrow Wilson, 1915, in War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars, ed. Andrew Carroll (New York: Scribner, 2002), 125.
Writer to Recipient, Date of Letter, Archival Reference, Archive.
Colin Russel to C.B. Farrar, P098, box 30, file Correspondence F-H, Colin Kerr Russel fonds, Osler Library Archival Collections, McGill University.
Author (If Known), Type of Document or Title, Date, Archival Reference, Archive.
Colin Russel, Memorandum on Shell Shock, 17 March 1918, RG 9 III, volume 4032, file 34-22-A, Library and Archives Canada.
After a work has been listed in the footnotes, repeated references should use the short note form of that citation.
Surname, Short Title (text before any colon), Page Number.
Stacey, Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, 15.
Surname, “Short Title,” (text before any colon) Page Number.
Howard, “Ethics, Deterrence and Strategic Bombing,” 13.
Style Within Text
|Tables & Figures||Numbered sequentially throughout the article with a caption submitted for each. Where it is relevant, acknowledgement of permission to use the items by a third party should be included here.|
|Tables||Should be cited as “Table 1” with no full point after the table number. For columns of text, both column headings and contents should be left aligned. For columns of numbers, both headings and contents should be centre aligned with decimal points to be the centre.|
|Table Footnotes|| Use an asterisk for table footnotes. For multiple footnotes, use up to three asterisks and then the following symbols: *, **, ***, †, ‡
|In Text Quotations||Double quotation marks; single quotation marks for a quote within a quote|
|% or Per cent?||Per cent|
|Spelling Preferences||Please use UK spelling (-ise); where there is an Anglicised spelling of a non-English word, use it unless the original spelling is significant to the meaning of the text.
|Generally, non-English words should be italicised (except in the case of non-alphabetised languages) and all the diacritics should be retained. Where borrowed words or expressions have been largely accepted in English, drop diacritics and do not italicise (e.g., decor, naive, regime, elite). However, words ending in é/ée should retain the accent and must be italicised (e.g. résumé, protégé, fiancée).|
|Abbreviations||The use of abbreviations should be as limited as possible and full forms should be given at the first point of citation, e.g. The United Nations (UN).
| Ranks should be abbreviated after first use, e.g. Private (Pte.), Lieutenant (Lieut.), Colonel (Col.). For a full list of rank abbreviations, please consult Canadian Style 1.07 (non-DND/CF writing).
Ship names should be written with the designation capitalised and the name of the ship italicised, e.g. HMCS Bonaventure.
The names of campaigns, operations and battles should be capitalised, e.g. Operation Husky, Battle of Amiens.
|Oxford Comma?||No (e.g. Apples, pears and oranges).
|Measurements||Non-statistical units should be written out in words: an ounce of sugar and a gallon of milk. Measurements and percentages should be written with Arabic numerals: 30 mm, 2 km, 1 kg, 4 l, 2 ft, 100 lb, 3 per cent.
Some people—who will not be named—don't wash (em dash)
|Numbers||Any number under 100 should be written out in words.
Approximate words (e.g. “hundred,” “thousand,” “million,” “billion,” etc.) should be written out in words.
Ordinals must always be written in words (e.g. (e.g. “first,” “second,” etc.)
|Money||$12, $12.65, £12.65, 65p, US$, NZ$, 95 Fr, 250 Kr, DM 8, 350 escudos, 20 roubles
|Dates||Friday, 14 October 2011 (14 not 14th)
|5 and 5-10 (rather than p. 5 or pp. 5-10). Only the last two digits should be given for numbers falling within the same hundred (e.g. 101-09). For page ranges outside of the same hundred, numbers should be given in full (e.g. 824-901).
CMH employs a double blind peer review, in which both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the process. This ensures that works are assessed fairly and objectively, limiting the likelihood of conflicts of interest as described in the previous section.
There are four possible outcomes of the peer review process: Acceptance, Acceptance with Revisions, Major Revisions Required for Acceptance and Rejection. Instances in which an article is accepted without any revisions being necessary are very rare. Many works are returned for revision due to noncompliance with the CMH Style Guide. As such, it is advisable to make initial submissions compliant with these standards.
Initial selection of manuscripts is performed by the Managing Editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief, who will then assign reviewers. Those submissions which are rejected at this initial stage generally lie outside of the aims and scopes of the journal, are insufficiently original or have serious conceptual flaws. Those manuscripts that are determined to be suitable for peer review are passed to a minimum of two expert reviewers. Authors whose work is not accepted at this stage will be notified in approximately two to three weeks of their initial submission.
The length of time between initial submission and publication depends upon a variety of factors, including the number of revisions to be made. Typically, the initial peer review process will take approximately two months, at which point the article will be returned to the author for revisions.
Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in specific subject areas and papers are assigned according to those subject specialties. CMH welcomes recommendations for reviewers from authors, though these suggestions may or may not be used based both on qualifications and immediate need. If you are interested in reviewing for CMH, please submit a current CV, including your areas of interest, to the Managing Editor at email@example.com.
The purpose of the peer review process is to guide the editorial board in their selection of content and to offer an opportunity to authors to further improve their work. If a work is accepted with major or minor revisions, the reviewer’s response will be made available to the author in order to guide his or her revisions.
While there is no length requirement for peer reviews, the response must provide adequate detail to allow the author to understand why the work was not accepted or what revisions need to be made.
When reviewing a paper, the following questions may be helpful to consider:
- Who would be interested in reading this paper and why?
- Does this work offer an original contribution to the field?
- Does the work draw on the literature in an accurate and effective manner? If there are notable articles or books which have been omitted, it would be preferable to include them in the response.
- Is the work well-organised, clear and concisely written?
- Is the analysis or argument thorough and sufficiently detailed?
- Are there any portions of the text that are unclear or unconvincing?
Requests for Reconsideration
Authors that are displeased with the results of the peer review process may direct their concerns to the Managing Editor at firstname.lastname@example.org. However, all individuals should be advised that reconsideration is not automatically granted upon request and, should such reconsideration be given, it does not guarantee the acceptance of the work.
Those authors who feel that there may have been a conflict of interest are advised to direct their concerns to the Managing Editor, outlining the exact nature of the conflict and its impact on the assessment of his or her work.
Guidelines for Book Reviews
Reviews should be between 1000 to 1500 words in length and written in a scholarly manner. CMH utilises parenthetical citations—i.e. (p. 42)—for material drawn from the book under review. Citations from other sources adhere to the conventions of the Chicago Manual of Style. There is no ‘standard’ review, but the following points should be considered when crafting your submission:
1) Clearly outline the author’s objective and main argument, as well as provide constructive criticism on the author's argumentation, clarity and overall execution.
2) Explain the significance of the author’s approach and methodology (e.g. use of sources).
3) Offer a general assessment of how the book contributes to our understanding of the subject at a general level. Reviews should situate books into existing literature and mention how a book challenges a narrative or adds nuance to an existing one.
4) Books that advance significant new historiographical (re)interpretations should be clearly identified as such.
5) In the case of edited collections of essays or documents we suggest reviewers focus on specific themes present throughout the book, rather than attempting to analyse each chapter individually.
Since CMH caters to a wide audience we also encourage contributors to specify whom they would recommend the book to (e.g. general audience, academics, undergraduate or graduate classes, professional military personnel, etc.). We also encourage our contributors to use prose that is clear and accessible. Clean drafts of reviews should be submitted not more than four months after being commissioned. Drafts submitted to the Book Review Editor of CMH are evaluated before publication.