Please share your experience of submitting an article to a journal. What was the length of the evaluation process from submission to decision? Did you receive useful feedback? Was the editor responsive to your queries? Etc.

Please add new journals alphabetically. 'Journal of' goes under 'J', while preceding articles A/The are skipped over in favour of the first word of the title.

Ars Judaica Edit

The Art Bulletin (journal of CAA) Edit

  • Any reflections on or sense of the timeline--from submission, acceptance, and publication?
  • Two months for a rejection (wasn't sent to reviewers, no indication as to reason which is unusual in my experience)
  • Two months for a desk rejection

Artibus et Historiae Edit

Art History (journal of AAH) Edit

  • (Updated) The journal staff is extremely professional and responsive. Waited 9 months for acceptance: second reviewer had bailed, not journal's fault, but a replacement was quickly secured. There seems to be a bit of a backlog, so I imagine it will take 2 years from date of initial manuscript submission to date of publication.
  • m/s rejected but in a timely manner -- less than a month, though no feedback
  • Great experience. Quick turn-around and good feedback.

Art In TranslationEdit

Art Journal (journal of CAA) Edit

ARTMargins Edit

  • A response received after five months. For a review of a revised and resubmitted paper, it took another five-six months. The review process took forever.
  • The editorial members (not outside reviewers) reviewed my paper, and their comments were helpful and constructive. Nonetheless, the journal was very disorganized and unprofessional. AVOID!
  • I submitted to ARTMargins Online and had a very positive experience. The editorial team responded within one month to my proposal. They worked with me to edit my article. The article was published three weeks after the response.

Art MonthlyEdit


Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art Edit

British Art Journal Edit

  • Good experience although the editor is a little distracted sometimes.

British Journal of Aesthetics Edit

Camera Obscura Edit

 Centropa Journal Edit

Critical Inquiry Edit

Design Issues Edit

Differences Edit

 Early Popular Visual Culture Edit

Eighteenth-Century Studies Edit

e-maj Edit

eSharp Edit

Gesta Edit

  • Remarks were short, brutal, and not particularly helpful, but the turnaround time was phenomenal (approximately 48 hours, so a desk rejection).

Grey Room Edit

  • This journal is going downhill fast. See all the ghastly (and consistent) tales of woe in the entry for this journal under "Film Journals":
  • Agreed. Avoid at all costs.
  • Ditto - terrible, do not even provide comments justifying a rejection after six months of waiting and prodding. Avoid indeed.
  • Disorganized. Bad communication among members of the editorial board. Avoid.

History of Photography Edit

  • Turnaround average. Note of rejection was perhaps more tersely worded than necessary.

I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance Edit

 IKON: Journal of Iconographic Studies Edit

 Immediations Edit

Inferno Edit

 International Journal for Digital Art History Edit

Invisible Culture Edit

  • Had an excellent experience with the editors of this journal. Publication was within 2-3 months, and review/edits were critical, constructive and informed.

Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Edit

 Journal of Art Historiography Edit

Journal of Canadian Art History / Annales d'histoire de l'art canadienne Edit

  • Good experience. Publication was relatively fast (within a year), but I am not sure it is always the case. The review was positive, but very thin in content and not useful at all.

Journal of Design History (Design History Society) Edit

  • Very good experience. Open peer review was an excellent way to proceed. Very attentive editor.

Journal of the History of Collections Edit

  • Had a very good experience with this journal. Response received three months after submitting. Re-submitted with revisions, received proofs in a matter of days, and the article was available online just five months after initial submission. Communication with the editor was great.
  • I had a very positive experience with JHC. The review process took only a month, and the report I received was thoughtful, constructive and overall very helpful. As a result, the final manuscript ended up a much better essay than the original submission. The entire process from initial submission to Advance Access publication online took six months.
  • Excellent. Very fast review time, great feedback from the reviewer and very light editing. Highly recommended.

 Journal of the History of Ideas Edit

 Journal of Material Culture Edit

Journal of Early Modern Cultural StudiesEdit

Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies Edit

Journal of Popular Culture (The Popular Culture Association) Edit

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (JSAH)Edit

Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld InstitutesEdit

The Journal of Visual Art Practice Edit

Journal of Visual CultureEdit

  • JVC are a 2-tier review journal. That is to say they first have your article read by the board to assess suitability then, if it is deemed suitable they pass it on to peer review. Editorial evaluation should take 4 weeks tops according to their website. I submitted an article in October. I got rejected by the editorial board, with no feedback, 4 months later and very suspiciously the very day I asked for an update...
  • I'm on the board of this journal and for 95% of submissions we complete the initial review within 30 days; if a piece is not going into peer review it does not receive feedback at this stage because we would not possibly be able to offer input on every submission we receive. If an article is accepted for peer review, that process can be fast or slow depending on how prompt the 2 peer reviewers are with their reports. We spend a lot of energy trying to get those reports because reviewers often say yes and agree to a quick turnaround then have to be chased down and reminded repeatedly. In the case above, though 4 months would be a quick response from most journals, I agree it is a bit slow for JVC. I expect this piece may have had a split initial decision from the editorial group and was sent to a third party to break the tie; the author asking for the update may have indeed prompted the managing editor to check back in with that third party demanding a decision. I'm sorry the author felt mistreated but I can assure them that the editors are doing our best to manage the review and decision process as ethically and fairly as we can.

Konsthistorisk tidskrift / Journal of Art HistoryEdit

Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft

Matèria. Revista internacional d'Art Edit

  • Blind peer review
  • CfP from september to december
  • Matèria. Revista internacional d'Art mainly gathers research and new contributions by art history specialists within a wide range of issues of history and theory of art, including performing arts, music and cinema. Edited by the History of Art Departament of the University of Barcelona.

Melbourne Art JournalEdit

n.paradoxa: international feminist art journal Edit

Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide Edit


Object Edit

Open Arts JournalEdit

Oxford Art Journal   Edit

  • Reasonable turn-around time but absolutely no feedback given with rejections.

Papers of Surrealism Edit

Parallax Edit

Photographies Edit

  • Helpful feedback. Timely turnaround. Overall, a good experience.

Print Quarterly Edit

RACAR: Revue d'art canadienne / Canadian Art Review (Journal of UAAC-AUUC) Edit

  • Fast reviewing. The managing editor was very professional but might not be around anymore. It took 6 months from submission to publication.

Religion and the Arts Edit

Renaissance Quarterly Edit

Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics Edit

Renaissance Studies Edit

Representations Edit

RIHA Journal Edit

Rutgers Art Review Edit

Sixteenth Century Journal Edit

  • About 6 months turn around with very productive, professional, and thoughtful feedback. + 3 months revisions. From there, it took about a year to be published in print. Very satisfied with the process.
  • 9 months turn around initially, then 2 years wait to appear in print. My piece was forgotten for 9 months, with no apology. Communications with editors random and disorganized, requiring multiple follow-ups with no response. Copy editing non-existent. Pretty disappointing.

Sculpture Journal Edit

Source: Notes in the History of Art Edit

Studies in Iconography Edit

  • Annual journal with an approximately 25% acceptance rate

Umění/Art Edit

West 86th: A Journal of Decorative Arts, Design History, and Material Culture Edit

Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry Edit

  • My review process took 2.5 months, which seemed very fast (especially since it happened around the holidays). Thereafter it took another 1.5 years to appear in print. I think there was some delay because of a change in the managing editor.
  • This is a two-tier journal. The editorial board reads the piece to assess its suitability and if suitable they pass it on to peer review. Oddly they want two hard copies ahead of the first tier assessment. I waited in excess of 5 months to receive (only when prompted for an update) an apologetic email saying it's good but not suitable for this journal. I would not recommend it, but unfortunately this is far from being an issue only with this journal.

World Art Edit

  • Great experience. The editor was supportive, and I received very helpful reviews. Turn-around was pretty fast: it took 13 months from initial submission to publication in print. Very happy with the final product.

Visual Culture in Britain Edit

  • My experience was good, quick turnaround and extensive reviews.

Visual Resources Edit

  • My experience was very good. The waiting time for review was long but the reviewers were very thorough and helpful and the editor very attentive.
  • My experience was excellent, good quality reviews and professional and responsive editor.

Visual StudiesEdit

  • I had a good experience with this journal. The review waiting time was long, I think it was 10 month turn-around all together, but the reviews were high quality and the editor was conscientous, professional and responsive to my emails.

Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte Edit

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.