Editorial & reviewers

Subject reviewers

We welcome a quality cross section of people with knowledge of the subject, region, period or language they will review. A degree is optional. Relevant experience, published work, community knowledge and formal study are equally valid ways to demonstrate expertise.

• Practical work: national park or historic-site guides, archivists, museum staff, educators, librarians and others who interpret or care for historical material.
• Research and writing: published authors, independent researchers and local historians, with examples showing how they use and check sources.
• Community and specialist knowledge: cultural heritage, languages, oral traditions and lived connections to the histories being explored.
• Relevant education or training, supported by evidence of applying that knowledge.

We assess the quality, relevance and care of your work. There is no fixed degree or minimum-years requirement, and paid and volunteer experience both count.

Editors

Editors need demonstrated ability to evaluate sources, check facts, edit clearly and handle corrections, alongside relevant subject knowledge. This can come from publishing, archival work, public history, teaching, community projects or formal study. A degree and a particular job title are not required.

Provide two work examples that show your own contribution, source evaluation and the ability to distinguish evidence from interpretation. We assess demonstrated ability and the proposed scope of work rather than imposing a fixed years-of-experience threshold.

Functionality reviewers

No history degree or formal software qualification is required. We welcome QA testers, developers, UX specialists, educators, librarians and experienced website users who can provide specific, reproducible feedback. People who use assistive technology can contribute valuable practical insight.

Describe your relevant experience and provide a sample issue report, testing checklist, work example or professional reference. Reports should identify the device and browser, steps to reproduce, expected behavior, actual behavior and impact. Share screenshots only when they contain no private information.

Review navigation, globe controls, search, timelines, mobile layouts, keyboard and screen-reader use, accounts, saved research and performance. Functionality review is credited separately from historical review and does not certify accessibility or security compliance. Test only your own account and data; intrusive security testing requires prior written permission.

Everyone who reviews

• Work within your expertise and identify gaps or uncertainty.
• For historical work, evaluate source provenance and competing interpretations and verify citations and dates. For functionality work, record the test conditions and reproducible results.
• Disclose relevant affiliations, funding and conflicts; step aside where independence is compromised.
• Keep private applications and unpublished material confidential, respect image and document rights, and respond constructively to corrections.
• Assess the underlying evidence yourself. AI output alone does not constitute a completed review.