Perhaps some other user will have a completely different take on this, but I can't think of a single professional historical work that describes itself as revisionist or a single historian who understands revisionism to be a meaningful category of historical scholarship. Now, clearly during the postwar era -- and particularly in the 1960s and 1970s -- a large body of historical writing challenged prevailing interpretations from many different angles. And the same kind of paradigm shifting work is occurring all over the place now, particularly (I think) in Queer Studies. But in a sense virtually all contemporary historical work is revisionist. If you don't have a new interpretation, new evidence, new methodology, or a new area of inquiry -- why are you doing history in the first place?