Business History Review: Scopus, Metrics, Scope and Submission Guide
Business History Review is a long-established refereed journal for historical research on business, entrepreneurship, firms, industries, institutions, and the changing relationship between business and society. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Harvard Business School, the journal was founded in 1926 and now appears four times a year. Its official scope emphasizes rigorous primary research, comparative perspectives, and historical analysis that engages significant debates rather than simply describing a company, industry, or period.
For a researcher deciding whether to submit, the central question is not only whether a manuscript is “about business history.” A credible fit usually requires historically substantial evidence, a clear contribution to a larger scholarly conversation, and relevance to the journal’s international readership. The journal explicitly highlights entrepreneurs, firms and business systems, innovation, globalization, regulation, labor, relations with political regimes, and environmental questions. Recent content also shows that the journal accommodates research crossing economic, social, political, technological, and institutional history when the business-history contribution is clear.
This guide brings together the journal identity, Scopus source record, currently displayed Cambridge metrics, manuscript expectations, double-anonymous review model, hybrid open-access arrangements, and practical fit checks. Because journal metrics, fees, indexing, editors, and policies change, researchers should use this page as a publication-readiness resource and reconfirm the official journal pages immediately before submission.
Quick Answer: What Is Business History Review?
Business History Review is a peer-reviewed business-history journal published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Harvard Business School. Cambridge lists print ISSN 0007-6805, online ISSN 2044-768X, and a quarterly publication frequency. The journal has been published under its current title since 1954, continuing the Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, which began in 1926.
The supplied Scopus source record identifies it as Scopus Source ID 20208. For researchers whose university, doctoral programme, promotion system, or funding rules require Scopus-indexed output, that source profile is an important verification point, but current status should always be checked directly in Scopus close to submission.
Authors should consider the journal when their manuscript uses substantial historical evidence to address a meaningful question about business actors, organizations, systems, markets, regulation, labor, innovation, globalization, political regimes, or environmental relationships. A topic can sound relevant and still be a weak editorial fit if it lacks primary research, historical depth, a clear argument, or engagement with business-history debates.
Key Takeaways
- Publisher: Cambridge University Press, on behalf of Harvard Business School.
- Identity: Print ISSN 0007-6805; online ISSN 2044-768X; four issues per year.
- Scopus: supplied source record 20208; verify current coverage directly on Scopus before relying on it for institutional requirements.
- Current displayed metrics: 2-year Impact Factor 1.0, 5-year Impact Factor 1.5, CiteScore 2.1, SJR 0.306 and SNIP 1.034 on Cambridge’s metrics page.
- Review: double-anonymous peer review.
- Publishing model: hybrid; Gold OA is optional, with a current listed APC of £2,610 or US$3,655 when an APC applies.
- Best fit: historically grounded, primary-research-driven papers that contribute to major debates in business history and related fields.
Journal Information at a Glance
| Journal name | Business History Review |
|---|---|
| Source type | Journal |
| Scopus Source ID | 20208 (from the supplied source record; reconfirm current Scopus status) |
| ISSN / EISSN | 0007-6805 / 2044-768X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Published on behalf of | Harvard Business School |
| Editors listed by Cambridge | Walter A. Friedman and Geoffrey Jones |
| Frequency | 4 issues per year |
| Established | 1926; current title from 1954 onward |
| Main field | Business history; intersects history, business, management and social-science research |
| Peer review | Double-anonymous |
| Open access | Hybrid; optional Gold OA plus Green OA routes under Cambridge policy |
| Submission system | ScholarOne / Manuscript Central via the journal’s official submission link |
| Official website | Cambridge Core — Business History Review |
| Scopus profile | Scopus Source ID 20208 |
What This Page Covers
- The journal’s history, publisher, editors, ISSN identifiers and publication frequency
- Aims, scope, research themes and realistic manuscript-fit questions
- Scopus source identification and current citation metrics displayed by Cambridge
- Research articles, review essays, book reviews and research notes
- Chicago style, originality requirements, supplementary materials and AI-use declarations
- Double-anonymous review and what that means for preparing a submission
- Hybrid open access, current Gold OA APCs, Green OA and colour charges
- Ethical Contentxprtz support for editing, formatting and publication readiness
Methodology and Source Note
This profile was prepared by comparing the supplied journal source record with current authoritative information from Cambridge Core, including the journal overview, author preparation instructions, journal metrics, review-process page, and fees and pricing. The Scopus identifier comes from the supplied source record and links to the Scopus source profile.
Metrics, open-access prices, editorial roles, indexing coverage and manuscript policies are time-sensitive. The values below describe information visible when this article was prepared on 10 August 2026; they should not be treated as permanent.
Understanding the Journal’s Academic Role
Business History Review sits at the intersection of history and business scholarship. Its subject is not “business” in the broad contemporary-management sense. Rather, it asks how business actors and organizations develop over time, how markets and institutions change, and how firms interact with social, political, technological and environmental forces. This historical orientation matters for researchers deciding whether to submit an economics, management, entrepreneurship or organization-studies paper with a historical component.
Cambridge describes the journal as valuing rigorous primary research, comparative perspectives and strong historical analysis. That combination suggests a high bar for source work and argument. A manuscript built largely from secondary literature can still be intellectually interesting, but it may not match the journal’s stated preference as strongly as work grounded in archives, company records, government material, trade sources, historical datasets, oral histories, or other well-explained primary evidence.
The journal’s international scope is also visible in recent publications and special issues. Topics span regions, sectors and centuries. For an author, the practical implication is that a local case study should usually do more than document a local story: it should explain why that case changes, tests or deepens a broader interpretation in business history.
What Falls Within the Aims and Scope?
The clearest statement of fit comes from the official preparation page: the journal seeks rigorous primary research that addresses major debates and offers comparative perspectives. It explicitly considers the history of entrepreneurs, firms and business systems, along with innovation, globalization and regulation, and it expresses interest in business relationships with political regimes and the environment.
Founders, family firms, managerial elites, ownership structures and entrepreneurial networks when treated historically.
Corporate organization, governance, strategy over time, business groups, multinational firms and institutional arrangements.
Historical development, adoption and commercialization of technologies, business models and innovation ecosystems.
Cross-border firms, trade, finance, empire, multinational networks and changes in global markets.
Business-government relations, regulatory regimes, political economy and the institutional conditions under which firms operate.
Workforces, labor relations, inequality, social consequences and the changing place of business within society.
Environmental business history also fits the stated scope, especially where firms, natural resources, risk, regulation or environmental change are historically analysed. A manuscript may be interdisciplinary, but the business-history contribution should remain explicit.
Indexing, Scopus and Current Journal Metrics
The supplied source record identifies Business History Review as Scopus Source ID 20208. Researchers who need Scopus recognition should open the current Scopus source profile and verify active coverage, subject categories and any quartile information that matters to their institution. This guide does not assign a current Scopus quartile because a current category-specific quartile was not independently verified from an official Scopus display accessible for this article.
Cambridge’s own metrics page currently displays the following journal-level measures. These metrics are generated by third parties and Cambridge itself cautions against using journal-level metrics to judge an individual article or researcher.
| Metric | Current displayed value |
|---|---|
| 2-year Impact Factor | 1.0 |
| 5-year Impact Factor | 1.5 |
| Eigenfactor | 0.00073 |
| Article Influence Score | 0.795 |
| CiteScore | 2.1 |
| Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) | 0.306 |
| Source Normalised Impact per Paper (SNIP) | 1.034 |
The Cambridge journal homepage also shows 2025 Journal Citation Reports ranking context for History of Social Sciences and Business categories. Because category ranking and quartile interpretation can depend on the reporting system and year, authors should verify the latest JCR and Scopus category pages directly when those classifications are decisive for a PhD, promotion or funding rule.
What Does Business History Review Publish?
Cambridge describes four main content types: scholarly research articles, review essays, book reviews and research notes. Researchers should not assume that every category uses the same submission route or preparation expectations.
Research articles
Research articles form the main venue for original historical scholarship. Recent papers illustrate the journal’s range: corporate ownership and control, multinational operations, intellectual history within business history, agricultural credit, financial systems, trade governance, insurance and homeownership, and the relationship between environmental risk and corporate power. The common feature is not a single method but a historically defensible contribution anchored in evidence.
Review essays and book reviews
The journal publishes review essays and book reviews, but book reviews follow a distinct set of instructions. Cambridge states that book reviews should normally be 800–1,000 words and review essays approximately 1,500–2,000 words. A review should explain the book’s thesis and contribution, place it in the literature, and assess how well it uses sources and achieves its objectives rather than functioning only as a summary.
Research notes
Research notes are explicitly listed among the journal’s content types. Authors considering this route should examine recent examples and ask the editorial office if the current author instructions do not provide enough detail for their proposed format.
Is This Journal a Good Match for Your Manuscript?
A useful fit test starts with evidence and contribution, not the journal’s metrics. Before submission, compare the manuscript with several recent papers in the journal and assess whether the work resembles the kinds of historical questions, source bases and argument structures that the editors publish.
| Question | Stronger fit | Possible concern |
|---|---|---|
| Is the paper genuinely historical? | Change over time is central to the question and analysis. | History appears mainly as background to a contemporary management study. |
| Does it use primary research? | Archival, documentary, historical quantitative or other primary evidence drives the argument. | The paper relies mainly on published secondary sources. |
| Does it engage a major debate? | The case revises, tests or extends a recognized scholarly argument. | The contribution is mostly descriptive or local. |
| Is business central? | Firms, entrepreneurs, markets, business systems or business-society relations are analytically central. | The business dimension is peripheral. |
| Is the significance broader than the case? | The paper explains why the case matters to an international scholarly readership. | The case is interesting but its wider implication is unclear. |
Early-career and PhD researchers can certainly consider the journal if the manuscript meets these scholarly expectations. Career stage does not substitute for fit: source quality, originality, argument, positioning and execution remain the decisive preparation questions.
Preparing a Manuscript for Submission
The current Cambridge instructions say that submissions must not be under consideration elsewhere and must not already have been published in substance or form. The journal uses the 18th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (2024) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary for spelling and hyphenation, and authors are directed to the dedicated BHR style guide.
Build the paper around the historical argument
A strong preparation sequence is to identify the paper’s historical problem, state the contribution to the relevant business-history debate, explain the primary sources and their limitations, and then structure the narrative so each section advances the argument. Historical richness is valuable, but evidence should not accumulate without interpretive purpose.
Check source and citation discipline
Chicago style should be applied consistently, but mechanical formatting is only one part of readiness. Archive references, business records, newspapers, government documents, datasets and secondary scholarship must be traceable and used accurately. When working across languages or historical naming conventions, authors should keep terminology consistent and explain translation or transcription decisions where they affect interpretation.
Prepare figures, tables and supplementary materials carefully
Cambridge allows supplementary material such as appendices, additional tables or figures, datasets, videos and sound files. Supplementary files are published online with the article and are treated as part of the academic record, but they are not typeset or copyedited. Authors should therefore submit them in publication-ready form. The journal also points authors to Cambridge accessibility requirements, including descriptions or alt text for figures and other visual content.
What Happens After You Submit?
Business History Review uses an online peer-review system and states that peer review is double-anonymous: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. The official submission route leads to the journal’s Manuscript Central system.
As a practical implication, authors should remove names, acknowledgements and other identifying details from files intended for anonymous review whenever the submission system and journal instructions require this. File properties, self-referential wording and identifying acknowledgements can also compromise anonymity if not handled carefully.
The journal does not publicly state an acceptance rate on the official pages reviewed for this guide, and an official average peer-review duration was not found. Those figures should not be estimated. After acceptance, Cambridge manages copyediting, proofing, typesetting and publication. The corresponding author receives proofs and is asked to return corrections within five working days. Contributions may appear online as FirstView before assignment to a scheduled issue.
Open Access, APCs and Publication Charges
Business History Review is a hybrid journal. Authors can choose the standard subscription-supported route or opt for Gold Open Access under a Creative Commons licence. Cambridge also provides Green Open Access routes for eligible manuscript versions, subject to its repository and sharing rules.
For cases where a Gold OA APC is required, Cambridge currently lists £2,610 or US$3,655, with additional taxes potentially applying. For articles not published Gold OA, the Gold OA APC does not apply. Cambridge notes that institutional open-access agreements can cover the full cost in many cases, and the Cambridge Open Equity Initiative supports eligible corresponding authors from a range of low- and middle-income countries.
The journal’s current fees page also lists optional print colour charges of £200 or US$320. Online colour does not automatically mean the author must pay for colour in print; authors should check the exact production choice and current fee page before committing.
Publication Ethics, Originality and AI Use
Cambridge’s journal policies place the article within its broader publishing-ethics and research-transparency framework. For authors, three points are particularly practical.
- Originality and exclusive consideration: the manuscript must not be simultaneously under review elsewhere, and previously published material can create eligibility problems.
- Rights and permissions: authors are responsible for permissions for third-party content and for accurate attribution.
- AI accountability: AI tools do not qualify for authorship. The journal says generative AI use for text, images, translation, or data analysis should be declared and described; minimal non-generative spelling or minor formatting uses normally do not require declaration. The author remains accountable for accuracy, references and research integrity.
Researchers using professional editing should also preserve authorship integrity. Editing can improve language, structure and compliance, but it should not fabricate evidence, invent citations, hide prohibited assistance, manipulate peer review, or replace the author’s intellectual responsibility.
Publication-Readiness Checklist for Business History Review
The central question is clearly a business-history question, not merely a business topic with historical background.
The manuscript demonstrates rigorous use of primary sources and explains source limitations.
The introduction states which debate the paper changes, extends or challenges.
The case is connected to a broader scholarly issue; comparative framing is used where appropriate.
Several recent Business History Review articles have been examined for topic, method and argument fit.
Chicago 18th edition and the current BHR style guide have been followed.
The review manuscript is prepared for double-anonymous review without accidental identifiers.
Prior publication, permissions, competing issues and AI use are handled transparently.
Gold OA, institutional agreement eligibility and APC funding have been checked before selecting a route.
Scopus status, fees, metrics and author instructions have been reconfirmed immediately before submission.
Common Reasons a Manuscript May Be Unsuitable
No public checklist can predict an editor’s decision, but several mismatch patterns follow logically from the journal’s stated scope. A submission may struggle if it is mainly descriptive, lacks substantial historical evidence, treats business as a peripheral setting, does not engage an identifiable scholarly debate, or makes broad claims from a thin source base.
A technically polished paper can still be out of scope. Conversely, a strong topic can be weakened by unclear positioning, inconsistent chronology, overlong background sections, unsupported causal claims, or a conclusion that does not explain the contribution. This is why journal selection and manuscript preparation should be treated as one connected process.
How Contentxprtz Can Support Ethical Publication Readiness
Contentxprtz can support authors who already have a substantive research manuscript and want to improve clarity, structure and journal alignment. Relevant support may include academic editing, manuscript assessment, journal formatting, reference consistency, language polishing, cover-letter editing and reviewer-response editing.
The boundary is important: Contentxprtz cannot guarantee acceptance, influence editors, manufacture evidence, invent citations or secure publication. The author remains responsible for the research question, sources, analysis, interpretations, disclosures, authorship and final submission.
Preparing a manuscript for Business History Review?
Use the journal’s current author instructions as the controlling source, then consider professional support if you need help with language, structure, formatting or publication-readiness checks.
Explore journal publication supportSummary
Business History Review is an established, quarterly, double-anonymous peer-reviewed journal in business history, published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Harvard Business School. The supplied Scopus record identifies Source ID 20208, while Cambridge currently lists print ISSN 0007-6805 and online ISSN 2044-768X. Its strongest editorial signal is a preference for rigorous primary research that contributes to major historical debates about entrepreneurs, firms, business systems, innovation, globalization, regulation, labor, politics and the environment.
Before submitting, confirm current Scopus coverage, metrics, fees and author instructions; read recent articles; use the BHR style guide and Chicago 18th edition; prepare for double-anonymous review; and decide whether the subscription or Gold OA route fits your funding position. Journal selection should be driven first by scholarly fit, not by a single metric.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Business History Review?
Business History Review is a refereed scholarly journal in business history published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Harvard Business School. Founded in 1926, it publishes historical research on entrepreneurs, firms, business systems, innovation, globalization, regulation, labor, political regimes, and the environment, with a strong preference for rigorous primary research and historically grounded argument.
Is Business History Review indexed in Scopus?
Yes. The supplied source record identifies Business History Review as Scopus Source ID 20208, and the Scopus source profile should be checked directly before submission when a university or doctoral programme requires current Scopus coverage. Indexing status can change, so authors should reconfirm the source profile rather than relying only on an older directory record.
What are the ISSN and EISSN of Business History Review?
Cambridge lists ISSN 0007-6805 for the print edition and EISSN 2044-768X for the online edition. These identifiers are useful when confirming that a database record refers to the correct journal rather than another title with a similar name.
Who publishes Business History Review?
Cambridge University Press publishes Business History Review on behalf of Harvard Business School. Cambridge Core is the official journal platform, and the journal page lists Walter A. Friedman and Geoffrey Jones of Harvard Business School as editors at the time this guide was prepared.
What topics fit Business History Review?
Strong candidates usually connect historical evidence to significant debates about entrepreneurs, firms, industries, business systems, innovation, globalization, regulation, labor, political regimes, or environmental relationships. The journal values primary research, comparative perspectives, and rigorous historical analysis, so a purely contemporary management paper without a substantial historical contribution is unlikely to be a natural fit.
What article types does Business History Review publish?
Cambridge describes the journal as publishing scholarly research articles, review essays, book reviews, and research notes. Book reviews follow separate instructions, including a normal length of about 800 to 1,000 words, while review essays are generally around 1,500 to 2,000 words. Authors should confirm the appropriate category before submission.
What peer-review model does Business History Review use?
The journal states that it uses double-anonymous peer review, meaning authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities during review. Authors should therefore prepare submission files carefully so identifying information does not inadvertently undermine anonymity.
What is the current Impact Factor and CiteScore for Business History Review?
Cambridge’s journal-metrics page currently displays a 2-year Impact Factor of 1.0, a 5-year Impact Factor of 1.5, and a CiteScore of 2.1, along with SJR 0.306 and SNIP 1.034. Metrics change by reporting cycle and should be rechecked on the official metrics page before being used for institutional decisions.
Is Business History Review open access?
Business History Review is a hybrid journal. Authors may publish through the subscription route or choose Gold Open Access under a Creative Commons licence. Cambridge also describes Green Open Access routes for eligible manuscript versions and provides institutional agreements and equity initiatives that may cover or reduce Gold OA costs.
What is the publication fee for Business History Review?
For Gold Open Access, Cambridge currently lists an APC of £2,610 or US$3,655, with additional taxes potentially applying. Articles not published Gold Open Access do not incur the Gold OA APC. Cambridge also lists optional print colour charges of £200 or US$320. Authors should verify current prices and institutional agreements before selecting an OA route.
What style does Business History Review use?
The official preparation page states that Business History Review uses the 18th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (2024) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary for spelling and hyphenation. Authors are also instructed to use the journal’s own BHR style guide, which should be treated as the controlling source for manuscript-specific formatting.
Can I submit a manuscript that is under review elsewhere?
No. Cambridge states that manuscripts are considered on the understanding that they are not currently under consideration elsewhere and that the material, in substance as well as form, has not previously been published. Authors should resolve overlapping-publication or prior-publication questions with the editorial office before submitting.
Does Business History Review allow AI tools in manuscript preparation?
Cambridge permits certain uses but requires accountable and transparent handling. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. The journal says generative use for text, images, translation, or data analysis should be declared and described, while minimal non-generative uses such as basic spelling or minor formatting normally do not require declaration. The author remains accountable for accuracy and references.
How can I tell whether my manuscript fits Business History Review?
Start with the journal’s official scope, then compare your paper with several recent research articles and special issues. A strong fit usually combines original historical evidence, a clear business-history question, engagement with a major scholarly debate, and a contribution understandable to the journal’s international readership. Topic overlap alone is not enough if the method or argument does not resemble work the journal publishes.
Can Contentxprtz guarantee acceptance in Business History Review?
No. Contentxprtz can ethically help with manuscript assessment, language editing, structure, journal-aligned formatting, reference consistency, cover-letter editing, and reviewer-response clarity, but editorial screening, peer review, and acceptance decisions belong entirely to the journal. Professional editing can improve readiness; it cannot guarantee publication.
Final Guidance for Prospective Authors
Business History Review may be a strong target for researchers whose work combines serious historical evidence with a clear argument about business and its wider institutions. The journal’s long history and broad international reach do not remove the need for precise fit: the manuscript should look like it belongs in the conversation the journal is actually publishing.
Recheck the official author instructions immediately before submission, especially because fees, metrics, editors, policies and platform details can change. Then focus on the parts authors can control: an original question, transparent evidence, a well-positioned contribution, accurate citations, clear writing and careful compliance. Professional editing can help improve those elements, but acceptance remains an editorial and peer-review decision.
