The Concord Review
academic journal
The Concord Review: A Quarterly Review of Essays by Students of History is an academic journal dedicated to publishing the history research papers of high school students. It was established in 1987 by William H. Fitzhugh, a Massachusetts educator dismayed with the "dumbing down" of writing standards in American secondary schools.
The Review publishes about 5% of its submissions, and is considered among the most prestigious awards for high school students. Issued quarterly, the journal publishes research monographs on history topics from high school students from any country, as long as they are in English. Submissions are typically 8500 words long, and must be accompanied by a subscription fee (ranging from $70-$150) to the journal in order to be considered.
Related activities
In addition to publishing the journal, The Concord Review, Inc. engages in a number of other projects. Five outstanding essays per year are awarded the Ralph Waldo Emerson Prize of about $3000. Fitzhugh also founded the National History Club, with chapters in hundreds of American high schools. Also, The Concord Review, Inc.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “The Concord Review” as academic journal. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as academic journal. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7727293. 2 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1987.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “The Concord Review”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow The Concord Review primary sources, The Concord Review archive and Concord research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “The Concord Review”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “The Concord Review” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.