Humanities Journals Wiki

American Anthropologist

  • excellent and detailed reviews by three reviewers in under two months, with thoughtful remarks by the editor as well. The best of all journals I've submitted to, as far as the review process goes.

American Ethnologist

  • Detailed and helpful reviews by three reviewers; reviews took seven months to come back (this was in 2014, under the previous editor).
  • Detailed and critical, but helpful reviews by three reviewers delivered four months after submission; revised manuscript returned with thoughtful, but much abbreviated feedback from (I think) same three reviewers three months after second submission. Great experience with current editor (2017-18)
  • Detailed and helpful reviews by three reviewers received four months after submission (editor's comments were more critical overall than the reviewers) (2017-2018).
  • Current editor has been rude, unhelpful and also very untransparent throughout the process (2017-2018). Article went through two rounds of review only to be rejected in the end; the entire process spanned about 10 months. The first set of reviews were helpful, though it was hard to see that initially because as one commenter states above the editor made it a point to comment more harshly than the actual reviewers. Second set of reviews were abysmal - flat out wrong about empirical material they were attempting to "correct" in the article, picking on minor points in the article, or just a few lines of senior academic posturing and elitism. None of them appeared to have read the originally submitted article, raising serious questions for me about how this journal is managed. Each round of review took about four months and yielded four separate reviews.
  • Lengthy process and negative experience of review process in 2020-2022. First round of review took 8 months. No communication from journal until I asked for an update. Received three positive and helpful reviews and encouragement from editors for revisions. Resubmitted, second review took almost 8 months as well. Again, no communication until I asked about the paper's status. Three totally new reviewers. New editors took over journal during this round of review. Only one reviewer gave any detailed feedback but did not seem to have read the whole article, and most of the comments contradicted what the first round of reviewers had recommended.

Anthropological Forum

- Detailed and helpful reviewers by two reviewers in two months.

Anthropological Quarterly

  • Very thorough process with constructive and detailed reviews. After two-three months, first editorial decision with suggested changes concerning article structure before sending manuscript out for peer-review. Then, two reviews (waited roughly five months). The last round of revisions took two months (two reviewers).

Anthropology and Education Quarterly

Anthropology and Humanism

Anthropology of Work Review

Anthropology Today

City and Society

Critique of Anthropology

  • Only one review, took about 5 months.

Cultural Anthropology

  • Reviews back in a little over 2 months. 2 very detailed reviews with helpful commentary from editors.
  • Initial round of 4 reviews took about 5 months (but editors apologized for that), helpful commentary and feedback from the editors. Second round was quick (less than 1 month) to acceptance.

Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment

Current Anthropology

  • 2 reviews back under 5 months (revise & resubmit)
  • One review back (consisting of one paragraph) after nearly one year.
  • Two reviews: one very helpful and the other a one-paragraph gate keeper. Took about 8 months. I've had this kind of gate-keeping before at Current. Someone over there does not like the Marxian/heterodox approach. The editor was clueless and deferred to the gate-keeper but things should be better now that the new editor is an anthropologist.

Dialectical Anthropology

  • Two substantial reviews in under four months. Editors also had strong opinions.

Economic Anthropology


  • Only one review but it arrived in under four months.
  • Three fairly detailed reviews back within three months (submitted 2018).


Field Methods


  • Excellent reviews, three of them, but they take forever (7 plus months) to arrive.
  • Three substantive and helpful reviews; took 8-9 months
  • In the early days, terrible experience. 8-9 months on each round of review. Despite 3 peer suggestions to Accept (after an R&R), rejected by editor because it wasn't theoretically his cup of tea. Also said that because the journal had become more popular since i first submitted (which was a year and a half prior, given their slow review) the standards had risen. Not at all surprised to see the revelations of Hau that came out early June 2018.

Human Organization

  • three reviews with lots of substantive feedback in 3.5 months

Journal of Latin American Caribbean Anthropology

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Journal of Peasant Studies

Journal of Political Ecology

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute

Medical Anthropology Quarterly


  • Received very helpful reviews from two reviewers within three months (this was back in 2016), with useful comments from the editor as well. Accepted within a month of re-submission. There's a lengthy process from acceptance to publication since they only have two issues per year.

Public Culture


Transforming Anthropology

Visual Anthropology Review