Art History and Visual Culture Studies Journals

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.

21: Inquiries into Art, History, and the Visual - Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte und visuellen Kultur

• Editorial staff is highly responsive. Editorial board reviews submissions (1 month), after which they circulate for peer review (6 months). Submissions accepted in German, English, French, and Italian.
• I had a poor peer-review experience here. Reviewer didn't seem to have read the article, as their primary "problem" was the absence of a definition——a definition, drawn from the dominant literature on the topic, to which I dedicated a paragraph on page 2 of the manuscript. When I pointed this out, I received no response.

Archives of American Art Journal

• I really loved submitting my work here. Quick turn-around time, extremely helpful reviewer feedback, and they pay for all the image rights and reproductions. I didn't realize how professional and helpful the team was until I started submitting at other journals

Ars Orientalis 

• Waited 18 months for reviewer reports; was sent a bullet-list summary of the reports by an editor's assistant rather than the actual reports.

The Art Bulletin (journal of CAA) 

• Any reflections on or sense of the timeline--from submission, acceptance, and publication?
• 10(!) months for desk rejection without feedback
• 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
• Submitted beginning of October. Received confirmation. 2.5 months to be informed that it would be passed to desk of incoming Editor, even though not desk rejected by outgoing editors. additional 1.5 months for unhelpful desk rejection from new editor. Four months for desk rejection. No comments or feedback.
• Was informed by the editor that even if all reviews were positive, she might not publish. I suppose there is a logic to that response, but it strangely reminded me of high school "in group/out group" behaviour, and didn't strike me as particularly ethical.

Art East Central

Art East Central is an English-language, open access, peer reviewed international journal publishing articles on architecture, design and the visual arts in central Europe from 1800 to the present day.

Art History (journal of AAH) 

• (2022) Managing editor is, as noted in previous post, highly responsive, though desk review took twice as long as I was initially informed. 3 months for a desk rejection.
• (2021) M/s sent out to reviewers, came back with useful and more or less positive feedback, but the piece was ultimately rejected. Overall, good experience: both the editor and the editorial assistant were courteous and professional.
• (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.
• Wonderful experience. Brilliant feedback.

ARTMargins 

• 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.
• I also submitted to ARTMargins Online and had a great experience. They responded quickly to my submission and the editorial staff work great to work with overall. I definitely recommend this journal.

British Art Journal 

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

The Burlington Magazine

• The Burlington Magazine is the world's leading monthly publication devoted to the fine and decorative arts. It publishes concise, well-written articles based on original research, presenting new works, art-historical discoveries and fresh interpretations.
• The Magazine is both an enduring work of reference and a running commentary on the art world of today – as well as editorials on topical issues, it features authoritative reviews of all important books and major exhibitions, and our online Calendar is the best available guide to art events throughout the world.

Camera Obscura

• Refer to entry under Film Journals

Critical Inquiry 

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals

Eighteenth-Century Studies

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals

Gesta

• Remarks were short, brutal, and not particularly helpful, but the turnaround time was phenomenal (approximately 48 hours, so a desk rejection).
• Prompt and meticulous feedback. Went to 5(!) Individual peer reviewers with 4 rounds of review before acceptance. Editors demanded heavy changes for the text.

Grey Room

• This journal is going downhill fast. See all the ghastly (and consistent) tales of woe in the entry for this journal under "Film Journals": http://humanitiesjournals.wikia.com/wiki/Film_Journals#Grey_Room
• 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.
• late 2023: I should have believed the posts here; can confirm that the process is brutal: submit your article, wait 6 months, get rejected with zero feedback. Avoid at all costs and publish your work with a journal that operates more transparently. the antithesis of collegiality.

History of Photography

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

Invisible Culture

• 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 Canadian Art History / Annales d'histoire de l'art canadienne

• 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)

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

Journal of the History of Collections

• 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 Early Modern Cultural Studies

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals

Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals

Journal of Visual Culture

• 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.
• I had a bad experience with this journal. After waiting over four months, they apparently forgot about the paper I submitted. Their excuse was that their editor retired, but the new editor didn't seem to know what was going on either. Avoid submitting your work to this journal unless you don't mind waiting a long time and are open to the possibility that your paper may never reach the peer review stage.

Matèria. Revista internacional d'Art

• 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.

Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide

• .Quick turn-around time. Review is not blind and the editors make assumptions about the quality of your work based on your name and what they can find out about you from sources other than your piece, and this would also inform their way of reading and their level of engagement. Will not submit to this journal again.

October

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals

Oxford Art Journal   

• Reasonable turn-around time but absolutely no feedback given with rejections.
• Rejected with zero comments after 6 months of review. Will never submit here again.
• same as above. Submitted for essay prize consideration (pool of applicants also reviewed for regular publication). Took 6 months of review for a rejection, with zero comments (this is their unpublished policy for rejections.). Will never submit here ever again or review a manuscript for them. That work is now being published by a top-tier journal.
• I agree; I don't recommend submitting here. My article was rejected, with zero comments, after six months of review. That same article was just accepted with glowing comments from another top journal.

Photographies 

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

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

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

Renaissance Quarterly

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals
• A fast turn-around: less than 3 months, resulting in rejection. Though the rejected manuscript came with a detailed review, which was helpful in revising it for submission to another journal.

Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics

• Two months for a desk rejection with vague, but not harsh comments. Polite and professional message accompanying them. Ended with a note that they don't publish graduate student work, which is a standard that needs to be outlined on their website.
• Initial communication was very quick (sent for review within a day or two), and review duration average (3 mos). Rejected but very professional and helpful feedback.
• took 6 months for a desk rejection with no feedback

Representations

• Refer to entry under Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals

Sixteenth Century Journal

• 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.

Studies in Iconography 

• Annual journal with an approximately 25% acceptance rate

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

• couldn't have a better experience with this journal. Prompt feedback and communication from the editor. Also they help pay for image rights.

Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 

• The managing editor answers fast. I was told the editors aim to have a turnaround time of about 4-6 weeks, but that it is sometimes a bit longer.
• 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.
• I was also told the editors aim to have a turnaround time of 4–6 weeks. I have been waiting nearly 6 months, as did the previous poster, for a response with regard to the article's acceptance or rejection.
  • Am hearing there are delays due to pandemic. Was informed of turnaround time during pandemic.

World Art

• 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

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

Visual Resources

• 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 Studies

• 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 

• Very slow!!! My manuscript was with them for almost 2 years. Went through the first round of peer review but was ultimately rejected. It's a good journal, though, but I'd only submit if you already had tenure.