For more than thirty years, Social History has published scholarly work of consistently high quality, without restrictions of period or geography. Social History is now minded to develop further the scope of the journal in content and to seek further experiment in terms of format. The editorial object remains unchanged - to enable discussion, to provoke argument, and to create space for criticism and scholarship.

In recent years the content of Social History has expanded to include a good deal more European and American work as well as, increasingly, work from and about Africa, South Asia and Latin America. In the main, the bulk of this work has taken traditional form - that is, the shape of the scholarly article has determined the form of presentation, its narrative styles and its footnote apparatus. In some circumstances this format can constrain originality, at the worst, or, maybe less bad, it serves to limit conceptual or theoretical risk. We do not wish to argue here that the tradition is without merit. Far from it. Yet we do not judge it appropriate for all purposes. On the contrary, Social History will also welcome work which, rather than reproducing past practices, seeks innovation in focus and presentation. The ways of doing this are manifold: unexpected comparisons crossing continents; analyses led explicitly by theory; lucid appropriations of other disciplines; short, critical reviews of the field's unchallenged assumptions. All these have appeared in recent submissions to Social History, and they are all welcome. They do not, of course, exhaust the innovative possibilities.

It would be too strong to say that Social History seeks to establish an entirely new 'voice'. Yet we would like to modify the old one significantly to provide a new openness of debate as well as space for scholarly takers of conceptual risk. If you think you've got something new to say, then let us know about it long before it has been worked into the exquisite disciplines of traditional practice.