*•*Please post dates of your entries so we know how up to date the information is and how recent the experiences have been.
Subscribe to RSS feed for this page: http://humanitiesjournals.wikia.com/wiki/Comparative_Literature,_Cultural_Studies_and_Theory_Journals?feed=rss&action=history
Back to Literary Studies Journals
- 1 a/b Auto/Biography
- 2 Affirmations: Of the Modern
- 3 Angelaki
- 4 Art History
- 5 Arthuriana
- 6 Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly
- 7 boundary 2
- 8 Canadian Literature: A Quarterly of Criticism and Review
- 9 Canadian Review of Comparative Literature
- 10 CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture
- 11 College Literature
- 12 The Comparatist
- 13 Comparative Drama
- 14 Comparative Literature
- 15 Comparative Literature Studies
- 16 Concentric
- 17 Configurations
- 18 Connotations
- 19 Contemporary Literature
- 20 Critical Inquiry
- 21 Critical Survey
- 22 Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature and the Arts
- 23 Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction
- 24 Cultural Critique
- 25 Cultural Politics
- 26 Cultural Studies
- 27 Culture, Theory, and Critique
- 28 Diacritics
- 29 Eighteenth-Century Fiction
- 30 Eighteenth-Century Life
- 31 Eighteenth-Century Studies
- 32 The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation
- 33 European Romantic Review
- 34 Exemplaria
- 35 Explorations in Renaissance Culture
- 36 Folklore
- 37 Forum for Modern Language Studies
- 38 Genre
- 39 Historical Materialism
- 40 History of Photography
- 41 Huntington Library Quarterly
- 42 Inter-Asia Cultural Studies
- 43 Interdisciplinary Literary Studies
- 44 ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment
- 45 JECS: Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies
- 46 Journal of Literature and Trauma Studies
- 47 Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association
- 48 JML: Journal of Modern Literature
- 49 Journal of Narrative Theory
- 50 Journal of Victorian Culture
- 51 LIT: Literature Interpretation Theory
- 52 Life Writing
- 53 Literature Compass
- 54 Medium Aevum
- 55 MFS: Modern Fiction Studies
- 56 MLN: Modern Language Notes
- 57 MLQ: A Journal of Literary History
- 58 Modern Language Review
- 59 Modernism/modernity
- 60 Modernist Cultures
- 61 Modern Philology
- 62 Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal
- 63 Narrative
- 64 Neophilologus
- 65 Neohelicon
- 66 New Literary History
- 67 Nineteenth-Century Literature
- 68 nonsite
- 69 Novel: A Forum on Fiction
- 70 October
- 71 Open Cultural Studies
- 72 Orbis Litterarum
- 73 Opuscula : Short Texts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance
- 74 Oxford Art Journal
- 75 PLJ : Pennsylvania Literary Journal
- 76 Philological Quarterly
- 77 Philosophy and Literature
- 78 PMLA
- 79 Poetics Today
- 80 Polygraph
- 81 Postmodern Culture
- 82 Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism
- 83 Public Culture
- 84 Qui Parle
- 85 Religion & Literature
- 86 Renaissance Drama
- 87 Renaissance Quarterly
- 88 Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme
- 89 Renaissance Studies
- 90 Representations
- 91 Restoration
- 92 Romanic Review
- 93 The Seventeenth Century
- 94 Sexualities
- 95 Social Text
- 96 South Atlantic Quarterly
- 97 South Central Review
- 98 Southern Spaces
- 99 Speculum
- 100 Studies in Canadian Literature / Études en littérature canadienne
- 101 Studies in the Novel
- 102 Studies in Travel Writing
- 103 ST&TCL: Studies in 20th and 21st Century Literature
- 104 SubStance
- 105 symploke
- 106 Telos
- 107 Texas Studies in Literature and Language
- 108 Textual Cultures
- 109 Textual Practice
- 110 Translation and Literature
- 111 Twentieth Century Literature
a/b Auto/Biography[edit | edit source]
- two rounds of revisions before a final rejection, with no explanation given (or offered when requested).
Affirmations: Of the Modern[edit | edit source]
Angelaki[edit | edit source]
- Very positive experience. The editor was professional and responsive. After about three and a half months, I received a revise and resubmit, and the paper was eventually accepted after about two more weeks. The reviewer's comments were clear, specific, and insightful.
- Astonishingly fast. 1 month from submission to acceptance (with minor copy edits). The editor was very responsive and a pleasure to work with.
Art History[edit | edit source]
- Relatively quick and cordial response (rejection) with the rationale "After careful consideration, however, we have decided that we are unable to publish your paper. Due to the volume of submissions we are not usually able to offer feedback for articles that are not to be published." This was a much better response than several, but as a reviewer myself, I find this unpersuasive - if you have read the article it does not take long to write feedback.
Arthuriana[edit | edit source]
- Submitted an article and received a very nice, thorough response within five months. Initially rejected but invited to resubmit after revisions, and outside reader's feedback was attached. Very cordial response, and again, very thorough and justifiable feedback. No 'damning with faint praise.' I'll update as I resubmit.
- Received a timely R&R and subsequent acceptance (did not receive comments from second round, was told it would be sent to a different reviewer). Some problems with their online submission site; be sure to clarify by email.
Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly[edit | edit source]
- Submitted an autoethnographic piece in mid-2017. Quick rejection. Editor said inappropriate for the journal.
boundary 2 [edit | edit source]
- For a time this was an academic journal but it is now a social club. They do not accept unsolicited manuscripts. The editor Bove was once worth reading and dealing with but alas, in the footsteps of Harold Bloom and Stanley Fish, his principal concern is now self-aggrandizement. Boundary 2 is his social club's newsletter.
- ditto. also, before it went no-unsolicited, i submitted a piece there and got the most awful, demeaning, unsubstantiated rejection "feedback" (basically a single paragraph, riddled with typos and a variety of other errors) that i've ever received. piece ended up being accepted elsewhere, at a better publication, and while this experience really did shake my confidence (i was a grad student at the time) i was ultimately very glad i didn't publish at a place that so quickly thereafter became officially a clique publication.
- x3 This board and the editor in particular are the worst of the worst in the academy. Nice enough people but the're just dominated by self importance. They want to "analyze the tyrannies of thought and action spreading around the world" -- ahh ahem -- that's the case and you don't accept submissions...irony anyone? Maybe you could start examining exercises of power through tyranical publicaiton control.
- This is a closed and in-house, NOT peer reviewed jorunal. They publish stuff on China for example and have no one on the board in the field. The board of pals determines who and what gets in. THis is a bit gross really, even if you dont buy into objective meritoratic procedures. They publish some embarassing stuff from Lindsay Waters, who is not remotely an academic or scholar but "merely" the CE of Harvard UP. Basically this is the journal of the "friends of Paul bove" and "selected friends of paul". Paul is a smart dude but this is a bit too much. Also, they radically overturned their board of editors/pals some years ago, who objected to this type of clique-ishness.
- It's also worth noting that of the fourteen members of the "editorial collective," there is exactly one woman. Tyrannies of thought indeed.
- The attacks on Lindsay Waters here are completely unwarranted. Contrary to the insinuations of the poster above, Waters has a doctorate from Chicago and has published extensively. His editorial work at both Harvard UP and Minnesota UP has also been field changing. Look at his role in the publication of Theory and History of Literature at Minnesota, for example. To suggest that his work is embarassing, and that he is neither an academic, nor a scholar, is a really bizarre set of accusations, considering his (deserved) influence. Whatever your problems with boundary 2 as a journal, ad hominem attacks on other scholars are petty and pointless.
- Waters is an academic press *editor,* a very influential and powerful if also notorious one, being at Harvard and all. That doesnt make him a scholar or researcher. And if you look at his writings (which you wont find in peer-reviewed/refereed journals or academic books I don't think---?) this speaks for itself. I have only seen him do journalism and chatty first person stuff. Nothing wrong with that but....... I trust this doesn't sound ad hominem, it is just plain as day. Anyway b2 is clearly a closed, in-house thing and rather insular and clique-ish or clubby, I must say.
- You actually will find Waters' work in academic books and journals. As I mentioned above, he has a doctorate from Chicago and is trained as a comparatist. I think you need to learn a bit more about how academic presses work—book acquisitions editors at university presses quite often have doctorates, as well as their own research pursuits. Moreover, the position of an editor at an academic press is a scholarly position. Lindsay Waters is very, very, very well versed in scholarship because that is what his job demands, even if it isn't a tenured professorship (something he very well could have pursued). This is why we have Bataille, Adorno, Benjamin, Blanchot, Deleuze, etc widely available in English translation. I can guarantee that Waters' scholarly work as an editor has had an influence on your own work, through his role in the circulation of "theory" in a North American context. One has to be both a scholar and a researcher for such an intervention to occur, whether or not that scholarship falls into the narrow parameters you're offering.
- If you don't know of any academic publications written by Waters, you could always do an author search on JSTOR. 20-30 publications come up, some are in B2, and some are in other journals. It kind of seems like a waste of space to list them all, though... But really this doesn't have anything to do with B2, which doesn't accept submissions anyway. Oh well.
- Hmmm if you do do that JSTOR search you will see this. Which if you leave out the b2 clique "pieces" (most of those clearly talks/chats), you'll find very very few actual academic articles. Lots of stuff about the publishing industry and related practical matters. So the original point stands, as also about the b2 house/clique journal.
Canadian Literature: A Quarterly of Criticism and Review[edit | edit source]
- Jan 2019: any recent experience, anyone?
Canadian Review of Comparative Literature[edit | edit source]
- Not a *bad* experience here exactly: good reports, so-so timeline, but the copyeditor was not very well trained or just not very experienced, making suggestions that reduced clarity and introduced error. So, keep an eye on that. But otherwise good.
- always with prompt feedback upon request--publishing cycle of more thatn 2 years
- I submitted an article almost two months ago and it is still "awaiting assignment". not impressed, honestly.
- Two years after submission still haven't heard back one way or another
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture[edit | edit source]
- I have had good and bad experiences here. I will say that I don't really believe what they tell me until I see it in print.
- From CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture: "Articles are submitted to the journal on its website directly, submissions are acknowledged, and the evaluation (double-blind peer review) is sent 3-4 months after submission in a composite evaluation from the comments by 2-3 readers. Publication follows max. one year after submission, normally earlier in the next available issue. Criteria for publication: a) Original research not published elsewhere prior to submission or submitted elsewhere, b) Submission is within the purview of the journal’s Aims & Scope <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweblibrary/clcwebaims>, c) Authors receive notification about the suitability of the paper for publication, d) Following peer review, authors whose papers are accepted or accepted conditionally receive readers’ comments in a composite evaluation (authors of papers evaluated against publication do not receive readers’ comments)." The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in regular, thematic, and special issues, review articles of scholarly books, and research material in its Library Series. ... The total download of the journal's material since its pdf format 2007- has been over one million. The journal is affiliated with the Purdue University Press print & e-books monograph series of Books in Comparative Cultural Studies http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/comparative-cultural-studies
- Absolutely unprofessional. After submitting my article, the editor acknowledged he had received it and never heard from him again. When, after several months, I inquired about the status of my article, the editor told me that it had been rejected a while ago and, as per their policy, I would receive NO feedback whatsoever. A total waste of time. (restored 05/12)
- The editor was unprofessional and at times belligerent in his correspondence. No readers reports were ever provided and the peer review process was very unclear (and possibly non existent). Interesting that the editor is on here trying to pitch for his journal (and apparently deleting comments). Stay away.
- The editors are very rigorous, but helpful. On the other hand, the editorial process can be rather long.
- I had a good experience with this journal. I submitted an article about Chinese literature. Peer review took three months after submission, and the required revisions were reasonable. Communication with an Associate Editor was very professional. A month after I submitted revisions the article was accepted. I was sent proofs on a word document with track changes, which was convenient. The article was published a year and a half after submission, which in my experience is pretty fast. Definitely recommend submitting your work to this journal.
- I have referred for this journal and found the editors competent and professional
- I submitted and got an acceptance after 4 months with a very good revision comment. It is a good experience.
College Literature[edit | edit source]
- Submitted Oct 17, accepted Jan 18 with extensive comments and recommendations. Amazing.
- Has now slightly leavened their pedagogical focus. A really excellent place to publish that has a wide scope and is not clubby or elitist.
- Historically as much concerned with pedagogy as critical and theoretical approaches, now looking for more work on the latter.
- Could anyone speak to the reputation of this journal? Is it not well known in my non-English field, but seems to be doing good work.
- They are a good journal. Several years ago (not sure exactly when) they went through an editorial change in which the journal now focuses on critical, theoretical approaches toward literature. Per their mission statement, they are interested in work that questions established readings, practices, etc etc. I've leafed through several recent editions, and it looks pretty solid. Most articles are not straight theory, but are readings of works within a theoretical framework.
- One thing that's particularly cool about this journal is that their review section considers reviews of instructional and introductory texts as well as just monographs and essay collections. So if you have things to say about the way your field is framed for undergraduates, for example, this is the place to raise those issues in a review. They do have a slightly odd policy that they won't let graduate students write multiple-book review essays.
- Great experience. Received Readers' Report within two months of submission, with positive and very useful comments requesting a revise/resubmit. After R/R, the Editor took less than two weeks to respond (accepted for publication)--the article is slated to appear in print in about a year's time. Frequent and polite communication with both Editor and assistants. More generally, the journal is publishing quality work fusing literary analysis and theoretical approaches.
The Comparatist[edit | edit source]
- I had a wonderful experience. I submitted an abstract for special issue in March 2017. They accepted me based on the abstract with full article due Dec 2017. Submitted full article and heard back in April with reader's reports. Editor gave me a month to revise and resubmit. Resubmitted and received acceptance within a few days. Received page proofs a few months later. Published October 2018. I agree with others that the editor isn't chatty, but I always received prompt emails at each stage of the process.
- I haven't submitted here, but I have served as a peer review for an interesting article for this journal. The editor seemed smart and professional.
- Published here recently. Fairly smooth process. Not much communication with the editor. No publication agreement ever came through. No offprints either. There may be some organizational issues either at SCLS or between the journal and UNC Press.
- I submitted an article to this journal last year (2012). The reports were poor quality and clearly thrown together hastily. The comments in the reports were not only vicious, but also perfunctory, unhelpful, and at times, nonsensical. The article was later accepted for publication in a better journal, with very minor revisions. A perplexing experience.
- I had one accepted paper recently (April 2014), but the correspondence with the editor was very brief. They have not contacted me yet (August 2014) for any bio-note or publication agreement. It might be a bit too soon, though. Apart from that, they seem to be fair and fast.
- Regret having submitted here (2015). Article was rejected with a single 500 word reader's report with random general observations ranging from catty to bizarre. Worst of all, it was almost entirely unhelpful in terms of improving the article or moving forward as a scholar.
- Similar experience to the above. Rejected with a single short reader report (2017), which was vicious and amounted to "should have used another theorist." I have had harsh reports before but I've always been able to take away something from them. I couldn't find one single helpful suggestion in this one. The only positive is that they have a quick turnaround time.
Comparative Drama[edit | edit source]
- Largely positive experience here. I submitted a paper in Sept/Oct 2017, and got a detailed R&R in November of that year. The comments were all very thoughtful and fair. Resubmitted in Feb 2018, and it took them until the end of June to get back to me on the changes, which was surprising given the initial speed. The paper ended up being rejected because of a single issue, which was frustrating after that much time. However, the reviewers were extremely generous throughout, and gave thorough commentary, including on the eventual rejection. I would submit here again - the paper is much improved, and I'm confident bringing it elsewhere now.
- As November 2018 draws to a close, I note that no issues of this journal have come out this year, though this is supposed to be a quarterly publication. Does anyone know what's going on?
Comparative Literature [edit | edit source]
- I had wonderful experience. 4.5 months from submission to acceptance, 2 years to publication because of backlog. The feedback I received from both reviewers were incredibly helpful. The editor made the process very professional, and was a pleasure to work with. (July 2019)
- Slow, but excellent reports. Also their editorial help during the production process is very professional.
- Moved fairly quickly. Two anonymous reviews within 4 four months. From time of acceptance to actual time of publication, however, was 1 1/2 years because of a back log of accepted articles.
- also moved quickly for me. 2 anonymous reviews within 2 months; one reviewer positive the other hostile (rejection, 2011)
- Fairly quick review process (~4 months) after inquiring with editor. Both articles I've submitted have been rejected, which is nothing unusual, but the reports have been frustratingly unhelpful. The problem seems to be that reviewers are selected based on national specialization and not methodology.
- as poster #2 above I appreciate and agree with the third set of comments. my article dealth with a specific national literature, but I preferred to publish in a comparativist journal. It was also true in my case that neither reviewer seemed to have substantively comparativist/methodological interests. Indeed, one reviewer was hostile to the very idea that I regarded the tradition I was dealing with as having "literary theory" at all! an odd choice as a reviewer for ACLA's journal of record.
- Again, the review process was quick (3 months). While ultimately the essay was rejected, I received helpful reports.
- Somewhat quick turnaround (~5 months) with a negative answer. Like other commenters, I was surprised that the external reviewers were averse to comparative methodology––the feedback my article received was exclusively focused on the supposed lack of rigorous historicization and secondary literature on the specific national context of the text I discussed, completely ignoring the comparative aspect. There was even a snide remark that the engagement with theory was exaggerated. It is puzzling that such reviewers are chosen for a journal that titles itself Comparative Literature.
- Slow, rather agonizing, but ultimately successful experience. No info at five months, but accepted a month later. Editor is a delight: clear, quick, encouraging responses to email inquiries. They can take a long while to find readers who specialize in the languages discussed in your essay. That snarls the process. One reader report was thorough and generally excellent (if a bit querulous and sometimes mean-spirited); the other reader report flaky and unhelpful. Apparently a long backlog once accepted.
- The experience was wonderful for me. Five months is not at all a long time these days, I have dealt with journals that take nearly two years. The backlog is long, but it helps to finish corrections quickly, as some people in the backlog take forever to deliver their final version. That moved me up a couple issues. The editors are the most professional people I have dealt with.
- Great experience with this journal. Quick turnaround, helpful reports. Considerate, professional editor, helpful and responsive in-house copy editor. Long backlog, yes, but editor did his best to get my piece out a year earlier than originally promised.
- Reviewer was not qualified to address the method or the substance of the submission. Lack of knowledge and bias about the method was evident. Lack of comparative preparation to deal with the two cultures/fields also evident. [posted Aug. 2015]
- one of the two reviewers suggested a name for reference that did not even exist in the field that I was writing about. Also seem not interested in/ lacking in basic knowledge in theories.
- Submitted here last year. Very professional and smooth experience overall, even though my article got rejected. They reached a decision in 4 months and gave me 3 sets of reviews. One was unnecessarily hostile but even in that report I could find good pointers. I'd highly recommend them - even if your article isn't accepted, you'll get good feedback. [posted June 2016]
Comparative Literature Studies[edit | edit source]
- 2018/2019: I had a very bad experience with this journal and I would discourage anyone at an early stage of their career to submit their work there. I waited for the reviews for 8 months, only to find out there was no second review to be shared with me. The editor didn't respond to my request to see the other review, which at that point I was sure was definitely missing. To make matters worse, Reader 1 clearly did not read through the entire essay, which had a comparative analytic part later on. They recommended Rejection based on the opinion that "it would be beneficial if the author knew [X] language and could compare the translations". In fact, I'm not only a native speaker of that X language, but I also did compare the translations, though in the later part of the essay which that Reader was somehow oblivious to. When I reported this issue to the editor, I again received no reply. I sent the same article to Contemporary Literature instead, and the process was fair, transparent and extremely professional. The article has been published and I only regret wasting so much time on CLS.
- I agree with others that this journal's process can be a bit slow, but on the whole I was impressed with the editors and reviewers, and with the quality of the work they did. Because I was coming up soon for tenure review, the editors generously agreed to let me submit my essay in MLA style even though they usually require Chicago, and they also agreed to try to hasten the initial review process by selecting readers likely to read it fairly quickly. I waited for 3 months after submitting electronically, and then received two helpful and professional anonymous reviews. One reviewer recommended publication, the second reviewer recommended an R&R, and the journal's editor Tom Beebee concurred with the latter. The second reviewer had a very critical tone which I initially found alienating, but s/he offered many criticisms that ultimately I found useful. Still, I was worried that this reader might not read my revised essay disinterestedly, so when I re-submitted it Beebee sent it to a third reader, who proceeded to neglect it for 5 months. After I had written several times to Beebee about this, he re-read the essay himself and accepted it. I mention all this because, despite my frustration with the third reader's delay, I was really impressed with how accommodating Beebee was in responding to my particular needs throughout the process, despite not knowing me at all. After the article was accepted, it took a year and 8 months for it to appear in print. A positive aspect of this was that I kept revising it in the interim, and the editors were always gracious about incorporating my revisions, right up until a couple of months before publication. I would certainly re-submit to this journal. (posted Dec. 2015)
- My submission took over 9 months; it was an R&R; resubmitted in 5/2012 and still waiting for word as of 9/2012--so it seems like an extraordinary slow turn around. Can anyone else report on their experience?
- editorial office does not respond (so far) to queries about corrections to my gallies.
- extremely non-communicative editorial office (2013)
- Also a very protracted experience: submitted a piece, after 5 months received an acceptance with recommended revisions. Submitted the revisions one month later, waited another 6 months for the revisions to be accepted and the article finally approved. And then more than a year for the piece to appear in print.
Concentric[edit | edit source]
Configurations[edit | edit source]
- Submitted summer 2020. Received a positive decision within 2 months with very helpful feedback. Very well run journal. Highly recommended.
- I had a fantastic experience with this journal in the fall of 2015. I had an acceptance and two super helpful reviews within 4 weeks of submission, and the article appeared in print 6 months later. All email correspondence was returned promptly.
- I submitted a paper, and didn't get even a *first* decision for 14(!) months. I wrote several times, and got a few generic responses from the editor, when he bothered to respond at all. I ended up withdrawing the paper and publishing it elsewhere. It was around five years ago (2009). I hope they got their act together by now.
- I had a similar experience, around the same time, except I never got a response or acknowledgment they'd even received the manuscript. After a year, I withdrew the article due to the editor never bothering to respond to any of my emails. The height of unprofessionalism.
- Any comments on this journal? One of the very best for lit / science studies, but not sure if anyone has any experiences to share?
- I also had to withdraw a manuscript from them--they had a ms for well over a year and had one reviewer respond (never found out what that person said) but they also had a hard time finding another reviewer. A year after I withdrew it (2013), the article was already forthcoming elsewhere and I received an email from the editor asking whether it was still available for publication. I think they were going through some kind of transition and a lot of communication was going poorly. From the other side of things, I've reviewed a couple of papers for them and that process went reasonably well. I'd be willing to give them another shot because I like a lot of what they publish, but I wouldn't do it if I were on a tight publication/T and P schedule.
- I had a good experience with this journal. I submitted in September 2013, got confirmation of the submission the same day, got a revise and resubmit exactly 12 weeks later. I resubmitted in the middle of March 2014 and received an acceptance two weeks later with a few suggested revisions. Communications were clear and prompt throughout. My article was published in December 2014.
Connotations[edit | edit source]
Contemporary Literature [edit | edit source]
- Submitted December 2015. Got a desk rejection within 30 days.
- I had perhaps an unusual experience: from pitch to print, 9 months. Perhaps good timing? Colleagues have said Con Lit is slow, but that wasn't my experience. Good editorial comments, but prepare to be copy edited into oblivion. Still, to have a piece here is worth it.
- Very conservative.
- Very complicated process, involving two readers: a long delay (6 months), followed by very quick action. Some obvious contradictions in the advice given on revision, and no initial editorial feedback on how to resolve them. Later communication directly with one reader and editor clarified directions for revision, which then went quickly. The final-stage editing was extremely exacting and...interventionist, mostly in good ways. From acceptance to publication was about 12 months.
- I've submitted two articles. The first, submitted several years ago, came back after 8 months (the instructions said 4 to 6 at the time) with an R & R. One reader had said to publish with virtually no revision, and one had said to revise heavily. I overhauled quite a bit and sent it back. They didn't resubmit to the reader who had said to publish, and the other reader said s/he still didn't like it. They rejected it without sending it out to another reader, which I accepted as marginally fair, though I've heard the additional reader is common practice. The second piece, submitted just recently, came back with a decision relatively quickly (a little over 3 months). It had gone out to readers, but I only received one report, which was one of the nastiest reviews of a piece of writing I have seen anywhere. Close paraphrase: the piece has no argument and manages to be simultaneously derivative and devoid of any apparent interest. Well over half of the report was harping on my disagreement with one critic's essay, which ocuppies 1.5 paragraphs in a 27 page article. Three of my colleagues, two of them senior faculty, had looked at some version of the piece, and none of them could fathom why it would elicit that kind of criticism. I had previously sent the piece to one of the most prestigious journals in American literature, and the generous desk rejection praised the argument (with which it showed specific familiarity) and suggested I send it to other top-tier journals. My experience indicates that the journal's editorial process is fairly shoddy, and it will be a long while before I submit anything else or recommend that any of my colleagues do so.
- 12 months for a conditional acceptance--an additional 3 months for contract. Readers were very well informed and gave good feedback.
- Submitted an article in September 2014 and received a reply - a rejection, alas - barely a month later. Prompt and polite. Polite but terse suggestions beyond the boilerplate-type rejection letter.
- Submitted an article and at the 3-month mark received a rejection with no comments beyond saying that the editors were too busy to give comments. Not helpful.
- My submission was returned after about 18 months with a short note saying basically no thanks. I don't know if this is typical, but it happened. Advice: don't be afraid to reach out & ask about the status of your article. I suspect that in this case, mine ended up in some kind of slush pile and then just stayed there unnoticed for a long time.
- Submitted March 2017, received boilerplate rejection December 2017 — reached out twice in between (their projected response time is 4-6months) but received no reply. Beware.
- Rejected after 6 months in review. They say 4-6 months so they kept to their promise. The rejection was accompanied with short comments, noting that they don't have time to comment properly. The short comments did indicate that someone had actually read the article properly and provided a few helpful suggestions, along with less helpful ones (but what's helpful is of course always up to debate).
- Don't expect to get published there unless you're at an R1. Sent in two submissions, with each, rejected after 90 days with no comments. I am guessing they have their grad students skim them. Both of my articles got accepted with other journals with stronger reputations than this one. Avoid unless you;re from an R1.
- Very slow. Submitted May 2017, accepted with revisions in August 2018 (after repeated nudging), published July 2019. Reader reports were helpful.
Critical Inquiry[edit | edit source]
- Don't bother with this journal! I submitted twice there over the past five years and in both cases the same result: over 5 months of waiting for exactly the same response (with no reviews and nothing specific said about the texts): Dear XXXXXX, Although we found much of interest in "XXXXXXX," we finally concluded that your essay does not meet our present needs. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to see your work. We appreciate your interest in Critical Inquiry. Sincerely, W. J. T. Mitchell Editor. In both cases, I immediately resubmitted the manuscripts elsewhere and they were accepted (one with minor revisions and the other with no revisions). I agree with what has been said here: because this is an incredibly unprofessional behavior, not only I am never going to submit there, I will also never review for them, read the journal, or put of any of their texts on the syllabi of my courses.
- Also had a long wait (around 5-6 months) for a brief rejection with no feedback and no evidence the article had even been read.
- After 11-12 months a rejection, and no reports - although I was told 3 people had read it. Since then, I have published several books with good presses, articles in PMLA, MLQ, MFS, and elsewhere, but I would never submit to (even by invitation) or referee for Critical Inquiry. I won't read the journal either, knowing that the peer review process is uneven, and that they do not share reports with aspiring scholars, who could really use the feedback.
- Almost five month wait before receiving a brief rejection email. No feedback of any kind. Wonder if they even read the submission. Oh well, I should have known better than to expect anything more decent, given its reputation. Blah.
- Highly desirable publication venue, like PMLA for the theory crowd. Given the high number of submissions I imagine they receive, a quick turnaround time (4 months), but in my case the rejection came without any reviewer feedback, and the editor's note simply stated that they enjoyed my article but it didn't fill a current need. Still, worth a shot when it's only 4 months out of your publishing life!
- Rejection at 4 months, with a one-sentence note that they enjoyed my article but it didn't fill a current need. Not sure whether it went to readers, but if it was a desk rejection, it should have been quicker, or else they should have passed on reader reports.
- I hear that this one's a closed shop (invitation only), and so I've never even bothered submitting.
- Not a closed shop at all. I submitted as I was finishing grad school, with no invitation and no special superstar accomplishments, and everyone told me that they'd just reject me out of hand-- but I got in, and they have actually been the most professional group of people I've ever worked with, journal-wise. If it seems like a closed shop, it's probably only because people always say it's a closed shop and so people are afraid to submit-- which of course does indeed make it, by default, a closed shop. If you have good work, send it in-- I truly believe based on my experience with them that they will give you a sincere and careful read, even though ultimately they have so little space that you might not make it in.
- Submitted an article in September of 2011. Contacted them in May of 2012 to find out the status of my manuscript. Was told that they were still waiting on one reviewer. Contacted them again in July of 2012, and was told that they had contacted the reviewer, and expected to get me a response no later than the end of August. Contacted them in October of 2012 (over one full year after submission), was told that my article was tabled to the next meeting because they had such a large back log. Finally heard from them in November of 2012. My article was rejected, and no reviews were provided. When I emailed the editor to ask to see the reviews, as that would help me better position my article elsewhere, was given a very standard response: "We receive many outstanding articles, and are simply unable to publish a great deal of them. We wish you the best..." This experience may not be shared by others, but it should be noted. I would never submit there again. And, I'm inclined to stop reading the journal altogether, simply because their review process is not transparent.
- Critical Inquiry IS a closed shop. They are not forthcoming with readers reports. They told me my article was sent out to readers, but they would only give me a short excerpt from the report, which more or less said what the person above reported. Actually, I recall the report said something inane like "the article is a bit long and we would want the author to cut some of it so it should be sent to another journal." Huh? Why not just ask me to cut it? I submitted here twice, once in graduate school and later after having published a book and a number of articles in top journals. When I first submitted, my thesis advisor-who happens to be a well-known figure in critical theory--said "CI is very snobby. They've never published anything of mine."
- After five months waiting, I received a standardized rejection letter with no readers' reports ... Disappointing.
- Had a very positive experience, despite it being a rejection. Heard back after about 4 months, with a wonderful, detailed summary of feedback from the editorial board meeting at which the manuscript was discussed. Very professional, very positive, very friendly, and very productive response. Best rejection I've ever had.
- Have published there. Worth the effort. Not the fastest editorial response, but definitely not the slowest either. Heard back in about 4 months, which is pretty cool when you consider how many submissions they must get from all over the humanities. I don't know how it really works, but I never got real readers' reports (as you would from a typical academic journal). I think the editorial board, all being at U Chicago, meet in person regularly and just free-fire on the submissions. Those brainstorms are then distilled as the readers' reports, with maybe one editor really offering something tangible.
- Two experiences. First, published there over a decade ago. Submitted in late August, got acceptance late January. The editors wanted little in the way of revision, though what they did recommend was helpful. Later, copy editing by editorial staff was incredibly rigorous: most thorough and precise I've had. Puts other venues, including university presses dealing with book manuscripts, to shame. Lag between acceptance and publication was about 18 mo., but otherwise no complaints. Second was much more recent. Wrote a piece I thought might be worth submitting, but since it was part of a forthcoming book only had time for one round of journal submissions; wasn't sure it was worth gambling on a journal with so low an acceptance rate. Sent it to an editor at CI that I know slightly and, within a day, got a thoughtful, courteous "probably not, and not at this length," based on an at least partial reading of the MS. The most helpful "no" I could have received. I'm senior and have had some interaction with this editor, which won't be everyone's situation, of course, but this was very much not "star" treatment, not least becasue I don't remotely fit in that category. Will try again with them--and given the opportunity, would publish there again in a heartbeat.
- After six months, I received a one line rejection stating that my MS didn't meet the journal's research interests. I suppose it was never sent for review. Complete waste of my time. Never sending MS there again.
- Submitted a short book review. No previous academic publications. Was accepted after 4 months. During the waiting period, editors responded quickly to my follow-up emails.
- Received a curt rejection after 5 months without any reader's reports. It seems it took that long for the editors to read the manuscript themselves. Entirely unhelpful. Found a home for the manuscript (after a revise and resubmit with very helpful review) at a similarly ranked journal where the editors kept me apprised of my manuscript's movements every step of the way. I would probably never resubmit to CI because of the time it takes to get a simple rejection and the opacity of the review process. Nevertheless, it's still a wonderful journal to read.
- Painfully slow.
Critical Survey[edit | edit source]
Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature and the Arts[edit | edit source]
- Recent reputation is an early career-type journal. Not terribly difficult to publish here. A little disorganized and slow on turnaround (6 mos. for me). Didn't ask for any revisions even though I know my article needed them.
- R&R exactly one month following submission
- Quick turnaround -- R&R one month after submission, acceptance one month after re-submission. Useful readers' reports.
- same here; R&R one month after submission (5/2013)--only one report
- Seem to be running a little slower these days: 7 weeks to reject, not sent out for external review.
- Accepted after approximately three months under review. Very professional and prompt responses from the editor. Good questions to prompt some minor revisions.
- Reject after 7 weeks with one-passage comments by the editor; not sent out for external review.
- 6+ months for a rejection.
- They devote two issues per year to special issues, so it may not be that easy to place a piece here. Accepted after four months of review. Comments were very rigorous but fair. Copy editor at the press very professional.
- >>>Where can we find information about future special topics issues? I can't find their calls for papers anywhere.
Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction[edit | edit source]
- They would not consider an article I submitted b/c it was not formatted in MLA style; rather than waste time on reformatting I chose to submit elsewhere, and it was quickly accepted. So don't submit any non-MLA articles here.
- 3 months for a rejection, only one reviewer commented. Their comments were helpful and basically right, but sounded a lot more like a revise/resubmit than a rejection. That seemed to be the editor's decision.
- I had a great experience with them, which was much appreciated because my tenure clock was ticking like Marisa Tomei's biological clock in My Cousin Vinny. They got back to me on the article within six weeks, had extremely helpful review comments, and led me through two rounds of revision and resubmission. This directly led to my being able to get tenure. I'm still waiting for the article to come out, but I'm always happy to have something accepted because they wanted it, not because they needed it.
- Three months from submission to rejection. Comments also sounded more like revise and resubmit though that option wa not offered. One reviewer and the editor agreed. The comments were sparse, though.
- Under three monts from submission to rejection. Dismissed on fair grounds, with somewhat helpful corrections. I've never published here, but I have tried twice now--both times I found the process reasonable and ultimately beneficial to my essays (which, after revisions, were placed in comparable or better journals). Send only very polished work: as posters above testify, R&Rs seem hard to come by here.
- Another fabulous experience here. Three months to R&R with detailed reports, one from an external reader and one from an Executive Editor. Minor revisions suggested. Article accepted literally *three days* after resubmitting it. Excellent communication from the assigned editor throughout.
- Great experience--under three months from submision to R&R. Minor revisions suggested, article accepted within a couple of weeks of resubmission. I was really impressed with both the external reader's and the editor's suggestions; the editor was less concerned with some of the bigger issues raised by the reader.
- Very good experience (back in 1996). It was less than three months between submission and report. Less than year between that and actual publication.
- Has been behind in scheduling for publication for more than a year now. In March 2014 they were scheduling pieces that had been accepted in April 2013. This month (February 2015) they are scheduling pieces accepted last March for the May 2015 issue.
Cultural Critique[edit | edit source]
- 20 months from initial submission to seeing the article in print. The article was initially sent to two readers, who returned extremely detailed and helpful reports within 6 months. The article was at that point "provisionally accepted" based on my effectively addressing the readers' comments in revision. I took two months to rewrite, and within a month of resubmitting, the essay was fully accepted. It then took a full year to appear in print, which is certainly on the slow side, but overall, the process was professional and worthwhile.
- A very pleasant publishing experience overall, though not the quickest: 15 months from submission to initial reader reports; 3 months for acceptance of revisions; ~1 year from acceptance to publication. Did allow me to revise extensively after mixed initial reviews. Reviews (including the one that initially recommended rejection) were extremely thorough and constructive; that negative review might be the most thorough going over my work has ever received.
- Very Good experience & would work with them/submit again. It did take 12 months to get pubbed after acceptance, but they tell you this upfront. My reviews were detailed and of high quality. There was one hostile reviewer (and while "blind" he knew me and vice versa) but this was discounted once I had a chance to respond. Very commendable in fact.
- Excellent journal. 4 months from submission to acceptance w/ minor revision. Detailed reader reports and excellent suggestions for revision for publication.
- Could not be more professional. Excellent journal to publish with. Accepted fully in 6 months.
- I had a great experience here. Received initial reader reports after two months; received final acceptance two months after resubmission. Very professional staff.
- I agree with all the praise: extremely professional. Editorial staff were very on top of things, and responded quickly and carefully to all questions. Received readers' reports within 6 months, both of which were the most thorough and insightful I've ever received, even one that initially recommended rejection. Article fully accepted within 3 weeks of resubmission. I'm being told up to 2 years for publication, however.
- (2021) I had a very positive experience with this journal. The editorial staff was extremely professional and went out of their way to be helpful. The revision and acceptance process played out in a matter of months. At the same time, I want to echo the above poster in saying that time from acceptance to publication was roughly two years. This seems to be industry standard at this point, but it's worth knowing in advance.
Cultural Politics [edit | edit source]
- Very good experience. Kept in consistent, professional contact about status of my submission. Got me detailed, thoughtful reports (including critical ones). Open to my response to them and encouraged revision. Once accepted it came out in under a year, I think about8 months. Would definitely submit to them again. [posted Oct. 2014]
Cultural Studies[edit | edit source]
- Waited nine months for first response. Revised. Waited another six months for the second. It demanded very substantive changes, inconsistent with those of the first round. Gave up, withdrew the paper and published elsewhere.
- Awful. Readers reports took nine months. I had questions about one of the reports, which referred to an "attachment" that wasn't forwarded to me, and wrote at least five times over a several month period for clarification. After the fifth email, got a response that they'd look into it and get back to me. Then nothing. The period for revisions expired, and I pulled my article.
Culture, Theory, and Critique[edit | edit source]
- submitted article 3/2011; two readers reports (only one really detailed) three months later; published within 12 months of submission. I would recommend publishing here.
Diacritics[edit | edit source]
- Highly recommended. The feedback was thorough and generous. The Managing Editor is the best I have encountered in my career. (March 2018)
- Managing editor is phenomenal. I had an ideal experience with the journal--I received some of the best and most constructive feedback I've ever received, the editing was meticulous and thoughtful, and the total time from submission to publication was around 8 months. (posted January 2018)
- I had a good experience here, but the turnaround time after the initial submission was about almost a year, I think. Editor is amazing. (October 2016)
- They give good feedback in a timely manner (around 6 months). The editor is super efficient. It's still pretty much alive (July 2016).
- I was rejected but comments on the article were timely and helpful
- Is this still a live journal? Looks like last issue was published in 2009?
- It's still live. The most recent issue came out a couple months ago. They're just backdating it.
- Everyone I know who's published here has had TERRIBLE experiences, i.e., 2-3yrs from submission to acceptance, then another 1-2yrs. to publication.
- I had a great experience there. The new editor is brilliant and very efficient. [posted March 2013]
- I submitted an article to a special issue last summer (June 2012), and received a form letter 2 or 3 months later saying it was "not a good fit." No reasons offered. I was able to publish the article in a different journal.
- 6 months, 2 readers reports, but seemingly positive, but resulted in rejection.
Eighteenth-Century Fiction[edit | edit source]
- [Comment moved from English Literature Journals]: Fantastic experience: quick response, understandable revisions/comments.
- Useful reports. Took 4 months. Rejections. Comments are helpful for revision.
- Quick response and the reader reports were thoroughly helpful. Excellent experience with editors.
- [May 2017] Submitted late April; rejection received approximately 2 weeks after submission. Encouraging general feedback about overall argument and suggestions for other journals where my article might be a better fit.
- [September 2017] Submitted for a special issue; rejection approximately a month after submission. No feedback or reason for rejection.
- [March 2017] Received a rejection with very encouraging commentary (one reviewer was a rejection, the other was revise and resubmit, but both were extremely helpful) about two months after submission.
Eighteenth-Century Life[edit | edit source]
- Good experience here. The original review took 8 months, but the R&R request was accompanied by helpful reader reports and an encouraging note from the editor. The resubmitted piece got another R&R (which took a similarly long time), but was eventually rewarded with an acceptance within 3-4 months of re-submission. The copy-editing process is extensive and incredibly helpful, and the copy-editors well-trained. Your piece will be read with a fine-tooth comb by several readers, and you have the opporunity to see corrected proofs before publication. The editor is also available for consultation if you have questions about nitty-gritty editorial decisions. I wish I could hire them to read the rest of my MS! :-)
- Famous for their meticulous copy-editing; it's painful, but immensely constructive. My colleague just showed me an already-polished piece they returned to him post-edit, and it's basically all red... it really is unique that each piece gets so much attention.
Eighteenth-Century Studies[edit | edit source]
- Any reflections on or sense of the timeline--from submission, acceptance, and publication?
- I submitted by e-mail. Within two weeks, the managing editor wrote to say that they did not feel 18thC Studies was the right journal for my article. Swift rejection was much better than long wait.
- Received an e-mail less than one week after submission. Encouraging, but they wanted something more interdisciplinary. I agree with the above commenter: better sooner than later.
- I published in ECS and had an extremely positive and professional experience from start to finish. Timeframe: Submitted by e-mail September 2014. Received notice of acceptance and four readers' reports in March 2015, leaving it up to me how much to revise in response to the readers' suggestions. Article in print April 2016. The journal is double-blind, so if the article passes a first round of review, it progresses to a second, with members of the editorial board—hence the long timeframe. The managing editor was always very professional during this period about responding to follow-up e-mails and letting me know what was going on. In the end the article benefited greatly from the suggestions of all four readers, as well as from the careful in-house copy-editing and proofreading that ECS provided. Especially if you are doing interdisciplinary or comparative work, the chance to get the level of feedback provided here is really helpful; I would guess that my four readers represented at least three different disciplinary or field backgrounds.
- Timeline: I submitted in November 2016 and had an article in print in April 2019. Timeline was a bit long, but the reviewer comments were very helpful and the process very professional.
The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation[edit | edit source]
- One very snarky (and ABSURD) 4 or 5 sentence, disaffected peer review. The other one was more sober and constructive, although it chastised me for not citing work that had yet to be published.
European Romantic Review[edit | edit source]
- Excellent experience with this journal: Received an R&R about one month after submission with thorough and constructive readers' reports. Received an acceptance about one month after I resubmitted.
- Not an easy journal to get into, and I have had both hits and misses there through the years, but really worth the effort, and there is a great feeling of satisfaction when your piece is accepted. Referees are timely, constructive, and speak to the issues actually in your article. The editorial staff is caring, meticulous, and professional. One of the premier journals in the field, and I don't mean just Romanticism but literary studies as a whole.
- Received a rejection after a few months. One reader gave unbelievably detailed and extremely helpful comments - some of the best I've ever gotten on any work - and the other left an unbelievably rude 2 sentence dismissal. Very odd experience.
- 6 weeks after submission I received a request to revise and resubmit. There were two reader reports, one glowing and one fairly skeptical. I did my best to address all of the skeptical reader's concerns, but my resubmission turned into a rejection after 3 weeks' wait. I'm not sure why a third reader wasn't consulted. It felt strange to get rejected after one reader loved it so much. The upside was very fast turnaround.
- Received a R&R about one month after submission, with very helpful, precise suggestions. Made as many corrections as I could, re-submitted it, and received an acceptance less than two months later. Very good experience, very fast turnaround.
- A truly pleasurable experience circa 2016. This was my first time submitting to a journal ever as a "dissertating" graduate student, so it is friendly toward younger scholars! I received notification exactly three months from submission that my article had been accepted, and both reviews were very positive. One reviewer was entirely flattering (cheers!) and offered little feedback otherwise. The second reviewer was equally encouraging, but had more substantial things to say: s/he summarized the article, highlighted what was impressive, new or important for the field, and offered several musings on questions of theory and history that actually generated a dialogue with my work. The second reviewer also gave very specific, but few, recommendations for revision that were exceedingly helpful. The first reviewer was very obviously an expert in the major authors I was discussing, while the second was clearly fluent in the theoretical approach and the historical debates. The editors requested that I perform the minor revisions to "enhance" the quality of the article and, given that the feedback was so reasonable and generous, I was more than happy to oblige. Absolutely I would submit again and cross my fingers that my luck in readers is the same!
- 2019: Fantastic journal! I got an answer after eleven days with two of the longest, most specific readers' reports I've ever received. The decision was Revise & Resubmit but the reviewers were genuinely helpful in their comments. After submitting a re-written version, I got a response after 22 days - again with very detailed reports (not sure if they were from the same people but it did seem like it). Decision was Accepted with Revisions. European Romantic Review seems like a highly efficient journal with truly dedicated reviewers and a managing editor who was also lovely. Highly recommend!
Exemplaria[edit | edit source]
- Have published here twice. Excellent experience all around; the process was rigorous and required much revision, but the editors saw potential in my article when others might have seen little, and did their best to forge a good final product out of it. The flagship of the contemporary medieval/early modern field.
- Exemplaria an academic journal dedicated to medieval and Renaissance studies from Maney Publishing has received the 2011 Phoenix Award for Significant Editorial Achievement from the Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ)
- I will echo the many positive comments here. Excellent communication from the editor and incisive comments from the readers. I heard back in about 2 months from initial submission and then waited about 1-2 months to hear back after resubmission. Reader suggestions were specific, actionable, and quite learned. This is probably the most pleasant experience I have ever had with a journal.
- I enjoyed an excellent experience with this journal. Each time I submitted an article, I was notified of their decision within a month or so (of their rejections, as well as of their acceptance of my third submission.) In each case, I received detailed and insightful readers' comments. The journal editor cleaned up my accepted article with a light hand before sending it to the publisher, who then progressed quickly through the process from copyediting to publication. The total turnaround time from submission to publication was about a year.
- Outstanding experience here. Probably the best experience I've had with a journal in terms of timeliness, transparency, and concrete feedback about the submission. Article went through two readers who were both VERY knowledgeable about my subject/author. Heard back within 2 months upon initial review (revise & resubmit), then a few weeks after second review (resulting in acceptance). Excellent, frequent communication from editor.
- Here too an overwhelmingly pleasant experience. The submission editor was exceptionally professional, the readers were critical in the best of ways, and the production editor was careful and attentive to detail. The initial acceptance arrived at right around three months and even with revisions and copyediting, the piece was in print about a year later. I can't image a more committed team of editors and readers.
- A similarly positive experience, this time a couple of years back. The readers chosen were very knowledgeable about my topic (in fact, I think they were chosen for expertise in the medieval work rather than in literary theory), they were tough and exacting but incredibly professional and fair. I took a long time with my revisions, but once I submitted them it did not take long for the acceptance. A good while later, I was asked to edit to reduce length by a considerable amount (the new length had mainly been to satisfy the readers), and although this was a bit annoying, it made for a much stronger piece. Editors were reachable by email and friendly.
- Received a very courteous desk rejection within a couple of days with some brief but helpful suggestions that showed they had read the piece carefully.
- Very courteous, friendly, and smart editors. Politely rejected my piece on rational grounds that it wasn't best suited to Exemplaria's theoretical focus.
Explorations in Renaissance Culture[edit | edit source]
Folklore[edit | edit source]
- R&R in about two months with very helpful reader reports. Strangely enough, reports were mailed by post (internationally!), even though the submission was sent in by email.
Forum for Modern Language Studies[edit | edit source]
- Timely review process; essay accepted with minor revisions. Editors are responsive and very professional. I really recommend it! (2019)
Genre[edit | edit source]
- R&R within 3 months; article accepted for publication around1 month after resubmission. Readers' reports were fair and thorough. Good experience here.
- I also had an R&R in 3 or 4 months. Revisions were weighed for another couple of months. In all, almost 7 months elapsed before acceptance. Overall, I had a good experience.
- For those who submitted to Genre, did you receive an acknowledgement? About two weeks has lasped for an article I submitted & which was never acknowledged. Follow up: I can now confirm that I submitted an essay here which was not even acknowledged (2013).
- I also submitted an essay and didn't immediately receive confirmation of receipt, but when I sent a follow-up email after two weeks the editor responded quickly and kindly.
- I received a prompt confirmation of receipt upon submission; R&R within 2 months. Article accepted for publication less than a week after resubmission. Readers' reports were insightful and the new editor was professional throughout. Overall, an excellent publishing experience (2014).
Historical Materialism[edit | edit source]
- Good journal, but very slow moving.
History of Photography[edit | edit source]
- Slow to react (I had to prompt them after 6 months in 2016) but the feedback for my essays rejection was really useful and helped me to revise my text..
Huntington Library Quarterly[edit | edit source]
- Really impressive experience here. Standard-to-fast turnaround (2-4 months), very full readers' reports and editors notes. This journal took a good article and made it a really good article, and I learned a lot in the process. More rigorous and helpful than its more prestigious peers, in my experience.
- Quick feedback- I received a response in a little over a month. The reports were thorough, although one sounded more like R&R. Both reviewers were very positive and one gave very good feedback.
- From submission through revision through being put in the 'queue' to publish, my article took four years to appear.
- I was hoping for the fast turnaround and detailed reports mentioned above, but didn't get either. It took 7-8 months to hear back, and I got just a couple snippets from the reports pasted in the rejection email (which must have come, I assume, from longer reports?). The wait would be OK If I had received some useful revision advice, but unfortunately I didn't.
- Really slow - they had an article for 11 months, but miraculously provided a response the same day I finally got round to chasing it up, which made me feel like it had been ready for a while but they could not be bothered to contact me. It was a perfectly amiable rejection, with some useful pointers to revise 'for publication elsewhere', but no actual readers' reports. Not anonymous either, referring to my earlier work in the response...?
- Painfully slow, taking well over a year on a submission, which was finally withdrawn. This after continuing inquiries. As for the two positive (and undated) descriptions above, caveat lector: the situation has altered since then. This is now a poorly managed journal, eager to solicit submissions but overdue for a shake-up.
- Those "snippets" mentioned above, ostensibly "from longer reports," could have been written by the editor, and "miraculously provided" upon inquiry. A few random comments are much easier to work up than a detailed report. A telltale sign of the practice is a lack of anonymity and thoroughness, which get mentioned here. You're unlikely to find useful advice in hastily improvised observations, if that's what they are.
- Similar experience: journal sat on submission for two years, then rejected with one-line "snippets" from reports. When I asked if I could see the fuller readers' reports, I was told that they in fact emerged from in-person conversations with readers. I don't believe such "conversations" actually took place. They're disrespectful of authors' time, and I won't submit again.
- Under new editorship as of June 2016.
Inter-Asia Cultural Studies[edit | edit source]
- Received a very prompt, but very snarky and grouchy reader's report. The reader clearly did not like one of the writers I was drawing on. It was clear that the reader did not read the whole essay and didn't seem very familiar or sympathetic to literary approaches to cultural studies. I have heard that others have had more positive experiences with this journal, however.
- Submitted hybrid piece of non-fiction, fiction and poetry in April 2017. Accepted after 3 days. Editors decided not to send for review.
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies[edit | edit source]
- Am about to submit something here, so would appreciate any comments
- Recently submitted, and am waiting to hear. It's been about a month.
- submitted article at beginning of 7/2013. Four months later, submission system still says "with editor" and it doesn't look like there has been any movement at all. Editor has responded to queries, but they seem very slow. I need to publish this article before it appears in book form, so I am considering withdrawing it for a faster moving journal. Comments re this journal's turn around time would be much appreciated.\
- I also submitted in July 2013. As of today, November 5, the submission page still says "with editor." I have not queried to find out what's going on. MLA bibliography says about ILS, "Time Between Submission And Publication Decision: 4-6 months." Could still be a while yet. (Update: I emailed to see if there were any movement on their side. They said my article is with readers, and they expect the readers' reports by the end of February.Additional update: revisions, but nothing other than a couple of spelling errors. Reader recommended publication. Fixed and uploaded. I heard back from them in April, so about 10 months)
- 5 months for a one line rejection. Would definitely not submit here again (2014).
ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment[edit | edit source]
- Very slow process for early career researchers. First round review completed after a year since submission. Two reports were quite positive and asked for minor revisions, but the decision listed on journal website is "major revision." Revised and resubmitted two weeks later, but has since then been put on "awaiting assignment" list. It's been three months now. The managing editor responds to my email very quickly and nicely. I wish I checked this forum before submission. My worry is that by the time my article comes out (if accepted), my arguments would lose its original cutting-edge feeling.
- Original submission was in July 2018. A revise and resubmit was requested at the beginning of January 2019. Two reviewers offered helpful, thoughtful suggestions for how to improve the essay. I resubmitted the revised paper at the beginning of April 2019. In mid-June 2019, the status for my essay changed to "Awaiting Recommendation," and at the beginning of July it changed again to "Awaiting Decision." On August 20, I received an "Accept with Minor Revisions." On October 21, my article was accepted. 15 months from initial submission to acceptance. Slower than I would have liked but all of my interactions with the editorial team and reviewers were positive and productive.
- I submitted an article to ISLE in August 2018 and withdrew it after receiving an acknowledgement email that said peer review was 6-9 months. I'd love to have an article in the journal but couldn't afford to wait that long while on the job market.
- I've refereed for ISLE and submitted an article for publication. Two totally different experiences. Refereeing was easy and my contact with the journal was helpful and professional. My essay, on the other hand, took 11 months to review and was sent to a hostile reviewer who pretty much dismissed it out of hand. To be fair, it was a revise and resubmit, but the reader offered no revision suggestions--total garbage review that took a year. Still annoyed.
- [3/17] Now nine months in, still awaiting a decision. The editorial team have been open about their difficulties securing reliable readers: they seem like terrific people working to secure solid feedback. To this point, I disagree that they are "unprofessional" or a "joke"; rather, they're pretty standard for the profession. It's worth the wait for the prestige in the sub-field and to reach their audience, but probably not an optimal target if you need publications for tenure in short order. (I could say that about almost all of my published essays, though. . .).
- Six weeks for a decision (minor revisions) with one detailed reader's report, one month between revisions and acceptance, and 9-10 months between final acceptance and publication.
- Eleven months from submission to rejection. After ten months of complete silence with no communication and no indication on the submission manager that anything was happening, I sent an inquiry. And even then it took several emails to extract a decision, the first few of which received no reply at all. Finally they replied with some excuses for the delay and the failure to respond. It's the flagship journal of ecocrit, but I've heard from several colleagues that such treatment is not unusual.
- So far, my submission has been stuck on "Awaiting Admin Processing" for 3 months...
- Yes, that seems to be automatic (the ME appeared immediately after I had submitted). UPDATE: I've contacted them now via email. Let's see... UPDATE: After 3.5 months its now under review. So I'll stop complaining ;-)
- [Edited for brevity] Submitted 2/2015. After 6 months (8/2015) and an inquiry, got R&R. System indicated "Major Revision" but single reader report asked for relatively straightforward revisions. Resubmitted 2/2016. It does not appear that system status is frequently updated. Journal is responsive to inquiries. Stated timeline on revised manuscripts (<3 months) is very optimistic. This journal is really, really slow. Just hoping for a decision at this point. UPDATE#1: Editorial assistant told me, four weeks ago (7/2016), that final decision coming "very soon." Still nothing as of 8/2016. UPDATE #2: Manuscript has been in the queue for final decision for two months. Pinged editorial assistant and received pretty much the same response. So, no end in sight. UPDATE #3: Received a decision: eventual publication with minor revisions. Long wait but excited to be a part of this journal. UPDATE #4: Resubmitted for second time two weeks after most recent decision (eventual pub., minor revisions) on 10/19/16. Still no final decision by 1/9/17. Emailed editor (with cc to editorial assistant) to ask and received acceptance 30 minutes later. Inquiries by email seem to get things moving here. Happy to be a part of this journal, but ~2 years from submission to acceptance might make it a bad choice for those w/ upcoming tenure reviews. UPDATE #4: Article was published today ~32 months after submission.
- Submitted 7/2015 and have thus far had a very similar experience to those listed above. After ~4 mos of "Awaiting Admin Processing" I received an R&R and one detailed readers report. Like poster above, I was told "Major Revision" but the report, which was helpful and friendly, asked for straightforward revisions (essentially asking me to do my due diligence regarding extent scholarship - only appropriate).
- An amazingly unprofessional journal. They've had a manuscript of mine for 14 months now. After around half of that I received one (!) not very helpful (uninterested and brief) reader's report and have been waiting seven months on feedback on my revisions--including over one month of waiting for the editor's decision. What a joke.
- Submitted at end of September 2015. Now end of June 2016. No reply other than form letter sent after submission, which provides that the expected review time is 6-9 months. System still says "Awaiting Reviewer Selection." UPDATE: Now it's July 2016. Status is "Awaiting reviewer scores." UPDATE 2: Sent email request for status at the end of August 2016. Was told that manuscript is out of review and in queue for a final decision. Now nearing the end of September but still no decision. Status says "Awaiting decision." UPDATE 3: Received revise and resubmit beginning of October 2016. Resubmitted mid-October. UPDATE 4: Now "Awaiting Recommendation." Reviews are apparently in. 1 year and 5 months have elapsed since the original submission. UPDATE 5: End of April 2017 wrote to editor assigned to my manuscript in ScholarOne system. He replied to say that he was no longer affiliated with the journal. Wrote to Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief, who both promptly replied and were helpful. Manuscript is apparently in queue for a final decision. UPDATE 6: Manuscript accepted beginning of September. UPDATE 7: August 2018 signed copyright; proofs to come soon. UPDATE 8: September 2018 - published in Advance Articles.
- Eight months after I submitted my manuscript, and it's still not sent out to reviewers! Ridiculous.
- 3 years and 4 months from submission to publication.
JECS: Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies[edit | edit source]
- I had a very positive experience with this journal. I received two thorough readers' reports about 4 months after initial submission (R&R), and the reviews were extremely helpful with wonderful suggested readings. Even the second reviewer who was more critical about my article asked substantial questions about my project as opposed to sharing nit-picky, personal responses. The managing editor was also prompt in responding to queries after the article was accepted. Overall it took about 2 years from submission to publication, but communication in the process had been clear and helpful throughout.
- Professional and organized. Worth putting in the time and effort to revise according to the reviewers reports.
'JMEMS: Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies'
- I had an excellent experience submitting to one of their themed issues, which might explain the quick acceptance time (< 3 weeks), since the special editors had a personal stake in the project. Thereafter, the journal editor, Michael Cornett, was exemplary in his communication and editorial professionalism. The article ultimately came out a year after initial submission.
- This is uktra-rigorous, real hard ot get into, but well worth the effort. Only submit though if you already have a finished, fully edited paper, the editors will not brook anything else,
- Before submitting, note somewhat odd formatting request: "All material in the document, including extracts and endnotes, should be formatted in a 12-point Courier (typewriter style) font (not in a proportional font like Times Roman)."
Journal of Literature and Trauma Studies [edit | edit source]
Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association[edit | edit source]
- Very positive experience with this journal! Submitted in mid-June and received an R&R in September. Received an acceptance for publication (in Fall 2017 issue) by November. Received copy editor's comments 2-3 months later (January). Reader reports were very helpful and thoughtfully written; the in-house copy editor also did a great job reviewing the final manuscript. Although it took longer than usual for the journal issue to be published due to issues with the printer (these have since been fixed), the time between original submission to publication was a little over a year, (14 mths) which is still quite good compared with many other journals, where it takes well over 6 months just to receive peer reviews. Despite the unforeseeable issues, the editors and staff communicated clearly with me throughout the process and I was pleased with the final product (digital and print).
- Very good experience with this journal! Submitted in June and received a R&R in mid-August, and an acceptance at the end of September (to be published in the Fall 2016 issue). The reader reports were extraordinarily helpful and both the editors and administrative staff maintained clear lines of communication throughout the process.
- Very behind on publication. I submitted in March. Now it's November and I haven't heard anything except that authors would be notified in November.
- (I'm OP) Just heard back -- late January -- and got a brief rejection, no reader reports. Said that they are under new leadership, which is why it took so long to respond.
JML: Journal of Modern Literature[edit | edit source]
- Very quick from submission to acceptance. No edits requested, but fairly extensive suggested changes in copy-edit, most of which I agreed with. Must add that I had good timing, unintentionally, with a thematic special issue.
- 37 days from submission to rejection, which had a few sentences detailing the reasons for rejection. Recommended for the fast turnaround (2017)
- Very quick response. Just over a month from submission to acceptance. Shortly thereafter I received the editors comments and suggestions (very helpful and thorough). Article is now queued for publication (no date set yet); entire process took less than 6 months. (2015)
- Moved very quickly. Even with 2 R&Rs, time from submission to acceptance was only 4 months. Very organized, thorough, and friendly editors and board. x3
- My submission never made it past the managing editor b/c I think it is unethical to require writers to follow the journal's citational style merely to have their work considered for publication. Am I the only one with this position? How I wish the MLA style would vanish from the earth and cede to the far superior Chicago style, or at least that authors would be free to choose!
- Received acceptance with no revisions requested after 3 1/2 weeks, although slight revisions were requested during the proofing phase. Altogether, time from submission to appearance in the journal was about 9 months. Correspondence was friendly/helpful and the process was remarkably fast. Highly recommended based on this experience.
- Warning: JML does NOT give reader's reports for rejections! I waited three months to hear my article was rejected, and I was told it's their policy not to share reviews for rejections. I would understand if it were just desk rejected, but it was sent to reviewers - after prodding I managed to get a two sentence reason for the rejection. Not exactly helpful for a process that depends on peer reviews to improve scholarship!
- I can confirm that JML does not give reader's reports for rejections even when articles are sent out for peer review.
- Recieved R&R within 3 months, accepted a few weeks after I resubmitted. Very professional, fast, and good communication. A great experience for my first journal article.
- Really quick turnaround - a month from submission to rejection - but would have been happier to have a longer response time if it meant the readers would have submitted reports. How in the world are we meant to improve our work if we don't receive impartial feedback from blind readers?
- I actually did get a report for the rejection. Maybe they changed the policy. Anyways, it took two months.
- Exactly three months from submission to acceptance. It seems they have a prompt and efficient editorial process. Great experience overall.
- Be warned, they are absolutely serious about that word count. It includes abstract and keywords, which they request from you. Less than two months from submission to one-line rejection with no peer review or feedback.
- Heard back with acceptance after less than 2 months. Very efficient. Time to print much, much slower. Very friendly, great staff!
- Less than a month to acceptance.
- I submitted back in 2011 and was rejected, but with three substantial (and helpful) reader's reports within a month. Nervous to submit again, as this doesn't seem to be standard procedure, but intend to do so anyway!
- Submitted an article in the middle of May of 2016, received an R&R at the end of the following June. Sent the revisions back in two weeks and the paper was forwarded to the editorial board, which at the start of September accepted the paper with no further revisions. The editors were very professional, and it was a good experience from start to finish.
- Very fair all around. Two months until acceptance; editor provided some feedback. Appeared about eight months after that. Editors helpful. Would recommend.
Journal of Narrative Theory[edit | edit source]
- Submitted article in August 2011, submission confirmed Sep. 2011, still waiting to hear anything in May '12.
- They are notoriously slow. I receved acceptance in about five months, and then publication a year and a half later. But they are a good journal.
- Submitted seven months ago. Received submission confirmation within a week but nothing else since. Journal has been ignoring my emails for 1.5 months now.
- My experience was positive. Submitted in January 2016, accepted May 2016, and published in early 2017. I sent one email to nudge the review process along at the three-month mark, but that was it.
Journal of Victorian Culture[edit | edit source]
- Submitted at the beginning of November 2018, heard from them, after inquiring emails, at the end of May 2019. Discrepancy between the reviewers' opinions, and disagreement between the editors as well. The reader who rejected my article stated at the beginning of the review that they were biased against the theoretical background I was using. Overall, unprofessional and unhelpful comments and behaviour.
LIT: Literature Interpretation Theory[edit | edit source]
- Enjoyed my process with this journal. Got a split decision R and R, but the more negative reviewer was still extremely helpful and thorough, and they congratulated me on my revisions, which I took some amount of time on. Got accepted after that round. Professional and willing to publish junior scholars' work.
- Very easy to work with. Got an R/R but both were constructive and the editors also included their thoughts. Accepted after revision. Careful proofing by staff. Would recommend.
- Complete joke of a journal. Year long wait and then a rejection. Also not well regarded, do not publish with these clowns.
- Fantastic journal. I've never had such a streamlined process and such careful readers. My article, which was accepted, was requested by one of the readers to use in one of his courses and the editor facilitated that after it was published.
Life Writing[edit | edit source]
- Submitted Reflection essay in August 2017. Received confirmation email about a week later. Followed up in January 2018 to check status. Editor promptly and apologetically replied, requesting a bit more time. Acceptance email with one very helpful and one less helpful review arrived about two weeks later.
Literature Compass[edit | edit source]
- In house, by invitation only (for the medieval section, at least).
- ^^Editors do extend invitations to write pieces, but there is a full peer-review process once article is submitted.
- I was invited once/recently but declined in part because the journal is/was unknown to me and I'm too busy. It seems fully legit and reputable, but also very much a conventional literary studies one (loosely theoretical). Based in the UK mostly.
- Worth clarifying that Literature Compass doesn't publish standard literary research, but rather shortish review pieces covering the current state of a particular topical field or question. This goes most of the way to explaining their editorial practice.
- Re the above - it does! Reviewers very keen to establish the topical relevance of my piece. Not sure I know.
- several new errors were introduced at the copyediting stage, so I can't recommend this publication. They seem to be good on publicity, though.
- Same here! And when I say "several new errors," I mean extensive and glaring errors. Very annoying. They do publish good pieces--some more overview-y and some more argument-driven, but it is not a pleasant production process.
- Commisions survey /state of the field pieces from relevant experts. Unproblematic editing process when I submitted a piece
Medium Aevum[edit | edit source]
- Samuel Beckett might have been inspired by this journal to write his Waiting for Godot. What more can I say. Nothing to be done. Pause. Silence. If you want to wait interminably, this might be a place to begin with. As a graduate student, one would learn the patience of Job here.
- This journal is traditionalist and if your work is at all theoretical or influenced by gender-based or queer approaches I would avoid.
- Absolute disaster. Been waiting to hear for more than eight months now and the editor doesn't even respond to queries. Avoid!
- Submitted an article and never received an acknowledgement of receipt (although the editor states in the submission guidelines that all articles are acknowledged). I emailed to confirm receipt after 1 month and never received an email response. About 4 months after submitting, I received an email apology with a rejection. Still, the feedback was quite helpful; however, only 1 reader read my article.
- Waited for six weeks (per the postal tracking info) to receive an acknowledgment of receipt, which I only got because I prodded. It was, however, very polite. A month later, I received a second acknowledgment, which made me wonder if they had actually done anything in the interim. At that time, I was told that I could expect to wait ten weeks, which seemed unusually fast. It's been well over four months since the first acknowledgment (almost six from the submission), and I'm still waiting. Editor is now ignoring my emails, even though s/he had said to contact him/her if I hadn't heard anything. A colleague said that they have had my reader's report for several months, but I do not know the source of his/her knowledge of the situation and did not press the point.
- I am perversely relieved to see I wasn't the only one! No acknowledgement of receipt (which would be nice when you're submitting a paper essay and sending it across the ocean, no?), most of the year went by before the reports were in, the few emails I sent were either ignored or replied to very late and apologetically. The reports themselves were fair, including one by one of the other editors, who chose to sign his name and make himself available for questions if I had any. The main problem was a structural one, and I think, in fact, they were right. They said they would look at a revision, but they couldn't promise acceptance and they expected it would take a long time to consider the piece again. I wasn't quite sure how to interpret this. Given all that, I decided to submit elsewhere, and the piece was soon published (with a thank you to the named editor). It's a shame, I really would like to publish in this journal, but how long can you wait?
- Response to above question: I think as long as the ship takes to go across the ocean: all this sound truly 'medieval'
- Not a great experience. Submitted by postal mail as directed on website, received an request by email for an electronic copy a couple of months later (suggesting the article hadn't even been sent out yet). Around three of four months after that got a rejection with no feedback or reviewers' reports.
- Editor for literary submissions is shockingly disorganized. Communication is poor. There's a production assistant who communicates promptly: I received regular updates promising a response within a couple of months, then in a couple more months, then in a month. This went on for ten months. I finally received a brief email from the editor saying there was nothing wrong with the article, it just wasn't right for Medieum Aevum (I suspect because of some mild 'theoretical' content). I pushed for some more useful feedback and was told that, because it had taken so long to get a response from the 'reader', the editor had accepted a 'verbal report' and had nothing else to say, suggested submitting it elsewhere without revision. The brief reply I did get overlapped verbatim with a previous response I'd seen for a (rejected) article. All in all: unprofessional, avoid.
- I regret to report that my experience with Medium Aevum is exactly the same as the above: a year long experience with long silences from the board and slight movement of the manuscript. Promises of responses "shortly" and "soon". If you want to experience time-dilation, here is the place to do so but look no further if you cannot wait for at least 8 months to a year. Just to make clear: the single reader's report and revised report were both in within a month or two but the editors take ages to act on them. The research-assistant is truly wonderful.
MFS: Modern Fiction Studies[edit | edit source]
- Form rejection after three months. No review. A waste of time, really.
- Submitted an article in November 2011 and was rejected in January 2012. The editor copy and pasted one reader review that was particularly nasty. Just beyond rude. So rude that I was completely stunned and kind of wish I could plaster it all over the internet. The reviewer clearly spent a lot of time crafting the perfect metaphors, similes, and imagery to convey what I can only interpret as hatred for what s/he is doing. (The irony is that, in a dependent clause, the reviewer admits that I had actually proven my thesis and that it was an important argument to make!) Maybe they think it's funny? Except it's not. I've received very nice rejections before from PMLA, for example, so don't discount me as particularly sensitive.
- Special issue rejection took 5 months, no comments or review given. A colleague got a swift desk rejection, 1 month, no comments.
- It took them four months to tell me they had decided not to send it out for review. Previously, I submitted for a special issue and was rejected without any comments. When the special isse came out, every contributor was tenured or full, at competitive institutions. It is not a good venue for an emerging scholar.
- I haven't published in MFS myself, but I saw a recent special issue with lots of junior faculty contributors, so the poster above may have had a fluke experience with it.
- Received a swift desk rejection, 6 weeks, no comments. (March 2013)
- I've published in MFS before (in 2006), and the experience was good. This time, I waited five months (rather than the stated 10-12 weeks), only to be rejected by one of the nastiest reader reports I've ever seen. Not only did it miss the entire argument of the article, but it also accused my prose of being "amateurish," while itself being riddled with errors ("which his novel itself do all the time"). After reading #1 above, I decided to contact John Duvall, the editor, about how incredibly unprofessional the reader was. He magnanimously responded, assuring that he was disappointed with the reader, as well, and would not use him/her again (let's face it: it was probably a him). I might submit there again, but they'll probably be way down on the list. Oh, and the article was accepted at a similarly prestigious journal with very little revision, so I don't think I'm sour grapes-ing this one.
- A short, form-like rejection two weeks after submission. Told me the article did not make it past initial review, and explained how they receve over 300 submissions a year, and all that. I am grateful for the quick response, though!
- Submitted an article for a special issue and it took them eight months to get back; another three months for brief (one paragraph) RR. No experience submitting for regular issues. As with all guest editors, it depends on the person and not necessarily the journal.
- Rejection took 8 months, had to email editors for a response; no comments provided (Jan 2015).
- Submitted for a special issue (so these comments aren't really a reflection on the process for regular submissions) but was unimpressed: article tied up for over four months, with only a basic desk rejection to show for it.
- Had a really good experience here -- submitted in Feb 2015 and received an acceptance with detailed reader reports in June 2015. However, the editor said they have a 21 month backlog, so it won't appear for quite a while.
- Worst experience I've ever had with an academic journal. Received an *acceptance* (no revisions) about two weeks after submission, followed by a blustering apology from an administrative assistant a few days later informing me that the system had accidentally sent out acceptances, that the article was still under review, and that I would receive a speedy verdict. Five months later, a desk rejection without any readers' reports. Unprofessional at best; unethical at least. Will not be submitting here in the future and will warn colleagues to beware.
- 7 months to receive a rejection without comments. The paper was subsequently accepted by Modernism/modernity.
MLN: Modern Language Notes[edit | edit source]
- Would echo other posters who have found that the journal is incredibly slow. In my case, it was 2 years and 7 months from initial submission to a revise and resubmit to a rejection. If you are on the tenure-track, I would consider other journals first.
- Submitted an article in January 2012. As per MLN's instructions, I submitted it in hard copy by slow mail. Bad idea. After three months (April 2012), I emailed the journal for an update and was told with apology that my manuscript was either misplaced or not received; could I send the article by email? I did. I emailed for an update again in July 2012; was told I'd have a response in 4-6 weeks. None came. Emailed again in October 2012, February 2013. One time ignored, another time was told the piece is STILL out for review. Not sure whether or not to withdraw it at this point. [Posted May 16].
- This is a top journal for comparative lit and the national languages, but beware if you are on a tight timeline. My experience with the French issue was SLOOW--nothing for a year, then another 8 months before I finally got one sparse reader report & rejection. During that time, I emailed the journal several times and was kept abreast of the status of the article, but it was a long wait for a rejection.
- I sent an article about a year and a half ago. Knowing they were slow, I didn't panic when I didn't hear for a year. Then at the beginning of 2014 I decided to email them to find out about my paper. I haven't received any response to any of my emails. After such a long time I'm reluctant to withdraw my article, as I'd like to get at least a reader's report out of what has been an otherwise pretty terrible experience.
- I had a great experience with MLN. I had a revise-and-resubmit request 3 months after initial submission, and some very helpful guidance for (fairly substantial) revision from both the editor and an anonymous referee (who took the time to do a very thorough reader report). A couple of months after I submitted the revision, I had an acceptance, and the volume was out a few months after that. All in all one of the fastest turnaround timelines I've had with any journal and certainly one of the best experiences I've had in terms of respectful treatment and smart critical feedback.
- I should clearly have read this here before submitting to MLN. Submitted an article via email to the German section mid June 2018, received no response whatsoever (not even acknowledgement of receipt). Emailed again in late August 2018, no response. Emailed one of the listed editor's university emailaddress in September 2018, received a response that they are restructuring and that they will get back to me, but still not even a confirmation that it will be sent out for review. It's been another month and a half and no response; sent another email to the editor and waiting for a response for a week now. If there is no confirmation that it will go out for review within the next two weeks, I will withdraw and submit elsewhere. There are journals of comparable size and renown (and quite a few with better h-indexes) who are more responsive (e.g. MLR). This is by far the most unprofessional journal I have submitted to across all the fields I research in. [article was eventually withdrawn and submitted elsewhere]
MLQ: A Journal of Literary History[edit | edit source]
- Summer 2020: Extraordinarily fast response: just one business day. Received line edits in the document as well as a long e-mail discussing both specific and global issues with the argument. The comments skew toward the problems rather than praise, but they're clearly made in a spirit of generosity and professional integrity.
- Detailed and quick rejection, which came with vitriol bordering on sociopathic. Grandiose gate-keeping by the editor ("you will never get this published anywhere," "worse than an undergraduate paper") intermingled with ad hominem observations about my academic profile. Rambling, patronizing, and condescending are good words for it, as per other reviewers. The paper was quickly accepted at a top journal in the field elsewhere.
- Fall 2018 - I've never seen anything like it. I received detailed, generous, and helpful feedback within two days (!!). The article was rejected but the rejection fully explained, directly by the editor. (Elsewhere, I've had acceptances that have been much less engaged or efficient!)
- Spring 2018 - Overall positive experience. Very fast turnaround (2 weeks). Thorough feedback for a desk reject, and some helpful line-editing of the piece. Editor does not pull punches. Had positive things to say about the submission, but wide open about what he sees as negatives. Ultimately, he liked the first half where I focused the literary history; he hated the second half where I did the close reading.
- This journal's editor is extremely unprofessional, and it's a wonder he's allowed to have this position. My article was rejected with rambling commentary offering patronizing suggestions that had nothing to do with the article itself. It seemed to me that the editor enjoys talking down to aspiring scholars, especially female scholars.
- Was rejected twice from them, but otherwise I have to agree that this is one of the rare cases of professionalism among journals in literary studies (although I also agree that Marshall Brown is not the most incisive thinker: he focuses mainly on formal aspects of the text, such as lengths of your paragraphs, how you start your sentences, that you absolutely cannot end a paragraph with a quote, etc.).
- A caring and exacting editorial staff. Not easy to get into, but if you do it is guaranteed your article will receive notice and get feedback from other scholars. Publishing an article in MLQ is as prestigious as publishing a book with most presses
- Typically very quick turnaround (especially for rejections) with full editor's report, suggestions etc.
- Agree with above. I've never had such thorough and detailed feedback for a desk rejection. Quite helpful, and left a very positive impression of the journal and its editor. x2
- Agree. Insanely fast turnaround and even rejections almost always come with an incredibly detailed response. Also, if you get accepted, the editing process is more thorough and helpful than you'll get almost anywhere else. One of the good 'uns.
- There was a fantastic response time for my article. Although the editor heaped praise upon the piece (very appreciated!), he graciously rejected it because the focus was a little too narrow (too author-focusedrather than focused on genre). It was, nevertheless, a fantastic rejection insofar as his editorial suggestions were both helpful and educational.
- It was a joy to work with Marshall Brown, the editor. As noted above, his turnaround time is among the quickest in the business. The process at this journal is a bit different: the editor is a gatekeeper and only sends out a small number of articles for review. He may have you revise substantially before even sending it out. That being said, he gives fantastic feedback and his copyeditors are great too.
- Very quick on turnaround. In my experience, editor has an accomplished air of authority, but is not the most intricate thinker. You do get speed, which is something. 2 reader reports, then R and R, with ultimate rejection on grounds that it wasn't "literary historical" enough. Why send me through the process, then?
- A little less than a month for a desk rejection on the grounds of quibbles with my prose and argument. The rejection came with unbelievably detailed notes and even some copy editing! I was grateful for the fast response and the notes, but I wish that I could have gotten a reading from someone in my field, who could actually judge the merits of my intervention.
- I too had a strange experience here recently, receiving an extremely detailed smackdown from the editor six days after submission.
- I had a similar experience to all above. Fast response directly from Marshall Brown. He's very fast but somehow also very helpful. He sent me a 1-page note with the rejection and even apologized for not having read the novel my article was about(!), and then apologized again for not giving my article his full attention (he basically stopped reading a few pages before the end). He noted that if he thought the article was a better fit, he would have read the novel. The man is unbelievable. I actually thoroughly enjoyed this rejection letter. And because of it, I think I now have a better article. Let me also say that you should take the journal guidelines very seriously. When they say they are interested in literary history and literary change, they mean it.
- I too received detailed copy edits, and I appreciate the effort that went into them, but I found them idiosyncratic and unduly focused on matters of style and taste. Written solely by the editor without recourse to peer review, they didn't evaluate any contribution I might have made to contemporary debates in my field. They were also framed in ways that I found condescending and unprofessional. (The editor gave me unsolicited advice about features of my career that are neither related to the article I submitted nor mentioned in my cover letter. The only way he knew about them was by googling me-- which he said he did.) Generally, I am overjoyed to get any feedback at all, and I can glean some insights from this rejection, too, but I won't contribute again to MLQ or recommend it to others.
- I want to suggest removing the above comment, as I i think it violates the purpose of this wiki, which as I understand it is to promote responsible publishing practices and to help potential submitters determine the best venue for their work. Whether or not the above poster welcomed the unsolicited feedback, clearly it was made with the best of intentions. My concern is that if editor were to read these remarks, he might be dissuaded from indulging his generous impulses in the future, and then everyone would suffer because of one ungrateful submitter. No one is compensating the editor and none of us have a right to demand detailed feedback. I personally welcome all feedback, and if I didn't like the response then I would just forget it, so I think the negativity is not well-placed. I think editors should be praised rather than criticized for giving feedback of any sort at all. Would others be opposed to removing these comments, given the damage they might cause? Or would the original poster consider rephrasing, in a way that would not have the effect of discouraging the editor from dispensing such unsolicited advice in the future?
- I'm the original poster, and I'm going back to edit my original post, because I see your point. I still feel strongly that the general thought should stand here to help contributors to MLQ contextualize any editorial feedback they receive.
- I too had an experience similar to those outlined above, and I too have mixed feelings about it. I love that the rejection came quickly... but I didn't love the fact that the editor looked me up and compared the piece to my other work. I guess you're sacrificing a blind review process for a quick, concise turnaround... and you may get some useful comments (though from what I can tell, these usually these appear as a summary of what is worth salvaging).
- I had exactly the same experience as the original poster: lack of understanding of my sub-field, condescending tone, and ultimately, would not apply again or recommend it to others.
- I was sent a quick (appreciated!) rejection, along with some fair but painful criticism. The editor also returned my essay with generous copyedits and some observations about bad habits in my prose--the most helpful criticism my writing has ever gotten, and I'm nothing but grateful.
- I had a similar experience to those of others - a very quick (three weeks) desk rejection because he felt the argument didn't fit the scope of the journal. It was clear from his comments that he didn't read the entire article, which I don't necessarily fault him for as I'm sure he has a lot of articles to sort through. Because he didn't read the article, though, some of his more substantive comments/edits were either unhelpful or actually would be detrimental to my argument. I also received a lot of comments focusing on matters of taste and style, but were mostly fine because, as another poster noted, they helped me identify some bad habits.
- I had an amazing experience with this journal, but I do recognize that it was idiosyncratic. I'd point out that the idiosyncrasy is crucial to both the insanely quick turnaround time and the copious feedback offered by the editor, Marshall Brown. I decided to submit to MLQ after reading here about how quick the turnaround was and seeing that they had just recently, that month, published a piece conceptually similar to the one I was preparing to submit elsewhere (I would have sent it to MFS otherwise). I submitted in May, got initial, small-scale but largely positive feedback in June (less than 3 weeks after I sent it). It was easy to revise quickly, so it then went to a first reader in mid-June. Heard from that first reader in mid-July, with an R&R. Sent my revised version back in September, got another set of feedback from Marshall Brown, then sent another version back which was sent to a 2nd reader in September. Heard from that reader in November, which resulted in a 2nd R&R. Sent another revision to MLQ in December and heard in early January that the article was accepted, then it was published before the end of that year. So two official R&Rs plus three rounds of smaller revision requests from the editor. It was time-consuming on my end, but MLQ was so, so quick and the feedback I received was phenomenal each time. The essay was 10x better from the process. Kind of the platonic ideal of peer review. My recommendation would be to go for it ONLY IF your MS fits the journal’s focus on literary history and periods (read their statement closely). Expect a quick response and, if you make it through all of the stages, a really rewarding experience and publication.
Modern Language Review[edit | edit source]
- Great experience with this journal. Professional and responsive editorial interaction (including when one of the reviewers dragged) and intelligent, considered reviews of my article.
- had a very good experience with the journal and its German section editors; my submission was accepted; received one reader's report in just two weeks after submission, very helpful comments without empty criticism; resubmitted ten days later and received a second report from the same reader after four months this time, resubmitted again 10 days after the second report and received the editorial final comments four months later, it was published 10 months after that; it was a very smooth process and the editor was very helpful; the reader was very supportive of the project in her reviews. altogether the review process took about 9 months until formal acceptance and it was published 10 months after acceptance. I really enjoyed the communication with the journal.
- Best experience I've had so far submitting to a journal. My submitted article was accepted within less than a month. Two reviewers' reports were included who had clearly carefully read my article. The requested changes were very minor, but in all cases made sense and improved the overall quality of the article. The proofediting was very swift and took care to recreate the odd line spacing of the poet I was analysing. From submission to publication took about a year. In short: very positive! Will definitely submit again!
- Very good experience. I have sent my article on 26.9.19. Got a rejection with R.R. on 5.12.19, but was asked to revise and resubmit. I couldn't understand one of the reviewers' comments so I asked the editor and he explained it to me. He was very forthcoming and encouraged me to revise and resubmit. I did the revisions and re-submitted on 27.12.19. It was accepted for publication on 13.1.20!
Modernism/modernity [edit | edit source]
One of the horse and pony shows of literary/humanities journals. Something like a wanna be Critical Inquiry for literary types but much less elitist (despite efforts to be just as elitist).
- I think there must have been a massive change in editorship since the previous comments were posted, because I just received an R&R with two very detailed, helpful reader reports after waiting only two months. The co-editor was also very helpful in laying out his expectations for revision (i.e. one of the reports had some weird suggestions in it that the co-editor basically told me not to worry about). (9/2020)
- few dates are given in the entries below so its very hard to track when these comments are from. Can posters please share details and make sure to include the date of the post? I've been waiting for over a month after submitting through the online system, and it simply says "awaiting sending for peer review" so I can't tell if there has been any action whatsoever (comment 7/2018)
- (9/2018) similar concern to the poster above — my article's been stuck here for 5 months, and I've emailed the editors once without response.
- My experience was that the status given by the online system was pretty much meaningless... I had the same message for five or six months (yes, I checked way too often!), even though the article had in fact been sent out to reviewers. It was still pretty slow... but I wouldn't put too much stock in what ScholarOne tells you. (9/2018)
- thank you!!
- Comments moved from English Literature Journals:
- This journal is the key journal in its field. I have done book reviews for it but never submitted articles, but the book review editor took the process very seriously and helped me produce a better piece than I ever thought I could. When I have something appropriate, I will definitely submit to them, and will be thrilled beyond words if my submission is accepted.
- "key in its field" what a joke. If "elitism" is a field, yes--I agree.
- received rejection after 9 months with minimal (one short paragraph) reader review.
- Rejection after 1 month, with attentive response from one of the editors, who suggested trying a more specialized journal
- received rejection in just under 3 mos. Included a (single) thoughtful, helpful, detailed reader review.
- "key in its field" what a joke. If "elitism" is a field, yes--I agree.
- Article submitted in 2015. R&R decision and two very thoughtful readers' reports received just 6 weeks later, with a 4-month deadline for resubmission. Decision on the resubmitted manuscript took just one month. Article in print 17 months after initial submission. Altogether a very efficient process.
- Decisions come reasonably quickly (4-6 months), but expect at least a year after that before the article comes out. Don't expect a detailed response. Friendly editors.
- Had a negative experience with this journal. Straight rejection took 7 or 8 months, which to my mind is far too long. The one report I received was brief, snarky, vague, sort of flagrantly unhelpful, and included several quotations from the manuscript that were (objectively) taken out of context, which gave me the sense that the piece was given a very hasty and uncharitable reading.
- After 10 months, manuscript was rejected with a quick summary by the editor of the reader's report. Content of comments suggested that reviewer did not read the entire essay (i.e., "Did not take 'XYZ' into consideration" --when, in fact, I do discuss "XYZ.") The editor I was in touch with was friendly and responsive to my inquiries about the long wait.
- unlike most journals, the online submission system gives authors the option of recommending specific reveiwers. does anyone know if the advice given is ever followed?
- For a long time, this has been a very disfunctional journal, with multiple venues for their editorial houses, and little communication between them. My piece waited nearly a year before I withdrew. I had called and emailed the editor several times, with no response. Got an apology from the managing editor subsequently, but I'll never send anything there again.
- I don't think it will be dysfunctional any more as they have appointed a new MSA editor who is fabulous. Also they have set up new systems. I aspire to publish in this journal as I think they print some superb material.
- Many of the comments here about the long waiting time probably, in my view, refer back to a previous organizational system that was indeed dysfunctional. Now, although there are two editorial offices, there is a single on-line submission system that allows for article tracking (as well as much-improved communication). Reviewing is relatively expeditious--2 months for a first reading seems to be the norm--and the quality of reviewers is also much more consistent.
- This last comment is reassuring - can anyone else confirm that this journal now moves faster - any other experiences of how long it takes to hear back after submission?
- Under the new system I waited 10 months for an R&R, albeit with detailed, helpful reader reports. [An update: I've now waited a year - that's right, 12 additional months - for a decision on this revised essay. Good thing I'm not in a rush or else I would have pulled it long ago.]
- I don't think I will ever send my work here again. It took ten months for me to get a revise and resubmit (that actually required very few and very minor changes). I resubmitted, and it took another 6 months to get it accepted. And then, it took 2.5 more years for it actually to appear in print. This was an important piece of research that I hoped would preview my book. My book came out before the article, and it came out from a famously glacial press that was somehow faster than M/M. I won't risk throwing my work into the vacuum of this journal again.
- I can second the above experience, and I don't recommend submitting here unless time is not an issue for you (it will indeed be years before you see it in print--and this includes the year they will spend on initial review). Hopefully the new US editor will improve things, but the York desk is frustratingly, shamefully slow.
- Yes. Author beware: They are really slow and unresponsive. People shouldn't have to wait for 10 months for a revise and resubmit and certainly not a for rejection. Very unprofessional to tie up articles as long as they do. There are other journals that move within 3-4 months, as this one ought.
- Got a very kind desk rejection within about 3 weeks of submission, saying that the content of the paper was appropriate for their readership but the scope of the essay wasn't wide enough. The editor suggested some more specialized journals where I might submit the piece instead, and offered some comments for revising the article if I wanted to resubmit to M/m at a later date.
- I think luck is, to some degree, a factor in the unacceptably long wait times listed here. I dealt with this journal under the new system (I believe) in 2011-12 and they took only 4 months to accept my article, though it took more than a year after that for it to appear in print. I would say it is worth it, as these things go, though, because this is a high-visibility journal in the field.
- Took 11 months to receive acceptance with minor revisions, with two decent reader's reports. Then took another 18 months to appear in print.
- Yes. I think the luck also has to do with whether your submission ends up on the York desk or the MSA desk. I had a very reasonable wait time (4 months) with MSA, but had to wait nearly a year for news from York. Ed always gracious and usually responsive, and I think they're working hard to make this better, but it's still pretty bad,
- Very different experience -- submitted in 2014, and got a rejection in 2 months. Two very thorough and generous readers' reports included. I'd definitely submit here again.
- I submitted an essay in December 2012 and did not receive a response until January 2014 (about 13 months). I received one reader's report, which was very positive, as the reviewer recommended only "minor revisions" to an essay s/he deemed publishable. Excitedly, I followed those revisions and returned the essay to M/M in February 2014. In August 2014 I received a rejection letter, featuring two short responses (one vague and biting, the other clearer and more helpful). A not only disappointing, but also, more significantly, protracted experience. Never again. Avoid, unless you can comfortably wait years for an answer.
- Question: Does anyone know what "CH:MSA, Desk" stands for under status (also says awaiting referee section which makes sense and is further clarified on their website). Just wondering if it would be foolish to withdraw an article that has that pending status. I have had second thoughts about resubmitting here for several valid reasons, but wouldn't want to pull it if has crossed at least a first hurdle. Does this mean it has been reviewed by the editorial staff or is it just an administrative acknowledgment? Thank you!
- Had a very similar experience, and came to the conclusion that the ScholarOne "status" is pretty much meaningless—even though the manuscript status had never been updated, the MS had still been sent off to readers and the process was churning along. (If you send an inquiry after a reasonable period of time, you'll get a polite and informative response.)
- This is one journal among several discussed on this wiki (of similar pubs PMLA, b2 and Critical Inquiry come to mind) that may have some element of blind review but only publish scholars from research institutions--people who are most likely already in their social circles or within extended circles. It should be said anyway that these reviews are never blind: the editor, who makes--or whose recommendation all but determines--final decisions, knows who authors are before anything goes to print. If there were anything close to transparency and access, we would find the cycle of reproduction of value, id est what appears in print, is limited to authors from a very tiny set of universities. An occasional outlaying example may be found, and celebrated, but in a broad sense, if you have an affiliation at a major research uni, especially as tenure-stream, your work will be considered at Modernism/Modernity as it will at the other "top" but really just elitist journals. This one, like that cohort, functions as one of the stratifying mechanisms that repeats the myths that divide people up into classes. I don't think the editors or reviewers are probably aware of their own biases, and would most certainly dismiss the idea of their own elitist prejudices, which only strengthens the system for them. Yes, Yale really is the best! That's why their authors have so much more success than others - Modernism/Modernity's publication record is perfect!
- The paragraph above strikes me as sour grapes stuff. M/M accepted my article when I was a third-year grad student at a distinctly second-tier school. PMLA followed suit a couple years later when I was an adjunct several tiers down.
- ha! above poster, evidence please.... while you look for something, pursuade me that the best work in this field is being done by scholars only at the likes of Chicago (x2), Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Chicago, Oxford, Berkeley, Columbia,...that's as far as I got until I lost interest, too obvious it is. I am sure you believe it to be true that elitism in literary studies doesn't exist, but that doesn't make people's work at public regional universities worthless. It's the priviledge that elite affiliational preference in "peer"-review that does. Dog and Pony show it is...
- I'm a school that is definitely less than fancy, and based on my experience -- R&R with two sets of detailed, encouraging, helpful comments after about three months; paper accepted about a month after I resubmitted--would agree with the poster just above: didn't see much evidence of elitist prejudice at M/m.
- The implicit bias is clear when one looks at the affiliations of the authors. There was a graphic about m/m circulating on facebook a few years ago that had the PhD of each author in a 10 year span. (Might be useful to link to it but I can't find it.) Yale I remember was in fact at the top of the list, something around 20% of articles. The other elite unis all had similar "luck" in m/m, followed by a very long list of "1" pub in the survey period - 1 meaning not 1% of texts but 1 text published. The "1" list was populated by many public and regional. One is welcome to believe that those from Yale et. al. are really that much better, and that the review system is indeed blind, and so on and so on. But reality poses many challenges to such an assertion.
- indeed, apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed this
- The implicit bias is clear when one looks at the affiliations of the authors. There was a graphic about m/m circulating on facebook a few years ago that had the PhD of each author in a 10 year span. (Might be useful to link to it but I can't find it.) Yale I remember was in fact at the top of the list, something around 20% of articles. The other elite unis all had similar "luck" in m/m, followed by a very long list of "1" pub in the survey period - 1 meaning not 1% of texts but 1 text published. The "1" list was populated by many public and regional. One is welcome to believe that those from Yale et. al. are really that much better, and that the review system is indeed blind, and so on and so on. But reality poses many challenges to such an assertion.
- The paragraph above strikes me as sour grapes stuff. M/M accepted my article when I was a third-year grad student at a distinctly second-tier school. PMLA followed suit a couple years later when I was an adjunct several tiers down.
- One week to receive a kind, thoughtful desk rejection and encouragement to revise the argument and resubmit either to M/M or a similar journal.
- (5/2020): Received a R and R (major revision) about 4 months after my initial submission. Reviewers' comments were very thoughtful and helpful. Resubmitted after thoroughly tending to the reviewers' suggestions and the article was accepted about 3 months later. A great experience overall!
Modernist Cultures[edit | edit source]
- Published an article with them as part of a special issue, for which we had excellent peer review. Subsequently send an article blind-review, and six months later, the editors had still not even read it to decide whether to send it out for peer review, claiming that they were completely backed up with submissions. Pulled and sent it elsewhere. (Fall 2019)
Modern Philology[edit | edit source]
- February 2021 - wonderful experience with Modern Philology. Quick response from the editor, which was followed by constructive, thoughtful and eye opening comments. It was a pleasure to work with the excellent editorial team, especially with the managing editor, Jessica Printz, who is a real pro. Highly recommended.
- Summer / Autumn 2020 — a brilliant experience with the journal. The editor was quick to get back to me confirming receipt of the article, and the reader report was one of the most detailed I've ever received. The article was fat better for the comments. My experience after acceptance was the best I've had: the copy-editing was thorough without being pushy, and the managing editor kept me in the loop on all ongoing matters with the publication. Highly recommend.
- spring/summer 2020 — great journal, excellent editorial team, and very professional staff. Rapid substantial feedback that improved my article. Highly recommend submission here.
- Spring 2019-Summer 2020. It was such a pleasure working with the Managing Editor in particular -- a real pro -- and the MP team in general!
- Spring 2019-Summer 2020. Very positive experience working with this journal. Received first response (revise and resubmit) three months after initial submission: the one reader's comments were judicious and constructive. My revision was accepted after two months. The highlight of the process was the exemplary oversight from the Managing Editor, whose incisive and scrupulously detailed attention both improved the language of the essay and sharpened the arguments. The overall turnaround time was also impressive: 14 months from initial submission to publication. Highly recommended.
- Fall 2019-2020: I had a wonderful experience working with the editorial team at this journal. I also found it refreshing that the reviewer did not have his or her own agenda and suggested revisions that made my article stronger. I was very impressed with how quickly the editorial staff communicated with me and with the thorough copy-editing my article received. My first submission was peer-reviewed within two months and accepted about a month after I submitted the revised version. Acceptance to publication was about a year. This was by far the best experience I have had working with a journal.
- 2018-2019; echoing the below comments, I had an excellent experience with the journal. Initial submission June 2018, detailed and useful (and kind!) r&r August 2018 - the comments were geared toward making the paper stronger, not to making it the paper the reviewer would have written - with acceptance November 2018 and publication about one year later. Very professional and responsive editorial staff (particularly the managing editor, whose thoughtful attention to detail was greatly appreciated) - highly recommended as a venue.
- Fall 2019: Had a great experience with this journal. Received a very helpful critique of my paper within two months of submission, then revised accordingly and my work was accepted. Following acceptance, the publication process went smoothly and the journal's editorial manager handled the whole business with great thoroughness and speed. I've published papers in nearly every journal that traffics in medieval studies, and I can affirm that few of these journals conduct themselves with as much professionalism as MP.
- Summer 2019. An amazing editorial team. One of the most exacting, thorough, and responsive experiences of my publishing career.
- Summer 2019. I had the ideal experience with MP. The whole process, from submission to acceptance, was very fast: it took 6 weeks from submission to get a decision from the reviewers, and only a few more weeks for the reviewers to evaluate revisions. The readers' reports were very helpful. The copyediting was very meticulous and careful. The communication and correspondence was very prompt. Overall, I would highly recommend this journal, and I know I will submit my work here again in the future.
- March 2019. I had a great experience with MP. Careful careful-copyediting and prompt and courteous correspondence. Excellent all around.
- March 2019. I had a very good experience with this journal. Turnaround times were quick - I had a response and readers' reports within about 6 weeks. With changes, my article was accepted and is to be published within 4-5 months - very quick in my experience. Best of all was the support provided by the managing editor who was exceedingly helpful, especially in advising on an image I needed to use, and I always received prompt responses to queries. The copy-editing was the best I've ever had - intelligent and painstaking, really engaging with the essay's content. Highly recommended!
- I had an exceptionally positive experience publishing with MP. Received an initial response (revise and resubmit) with an incredibly supportive, detailed, and thorough reader's report within 3 months. Acceptance of the revised version was very quick. Really got the sense they are excited about publishing my work; even the copy editor mentioned how interesting the article was to read. Great communication across the board, a little over a year from initial submission to publication. I have never had so much support for and excitement about my work from a journal. Would absolutely consider sending them future work!
- I have worked with MP twice, once as a reviewer (invited), and once submitting an article. It was a very positive experience both times. I was particularly impressed with the editing team, very responsive, knowledgeable, and thorough. Not super-fast, but very reasonable turnaround time on decisions.
- I also did not have a great experience. Perfunctory rejection, no readers reports or commentary, and MP took 8 months to get back to me.
- I did not have a great experience here: perfunctory rejection in less than 24 hours with no commentary or suggestions.
- Great experience working with MP front office, editorial team, and production crew. Article was time-sensitive and entire MP team responded accordingly. Fast turnaround on decision and good communications/suggestions at every step. Publishing in academe is a slow process, and in this context 6 months from submission to print is lightning-fast. Online publication was even faster.
- Probably my best publishing experience. Fast turnaround (2-3 months) with brilliant and helpful suggestions.
- If you submit here, be sure to carefully follow the formatting instructions under "info for authors"; otherwise you will be asked to resubmit.
- Got a quick turnaround on the decision, and great reader's reports. Waited a long time between decision and publication. Also got excellent copyediting.
- Relatively quick return (3 months?) with incredibly thorough, helpful, and kind reader's reports (three) asking for an r&r. Accepted almost immediately upon resubmission. Still forthcoming, but so far it's been a great experience.
- Another positive experience here: got a response in a little over two months (conditional accept), with a detailed reader's report. Finalized acceptance came 3 weeks after submitting revisions. But note the long wait time between decision and publication: could be 2.5 - 3 years before your article appears in print.
- Also my best publishing experience! The on-line submission system is very easy to use, keeps the process organized. Fast initial response (under 3 months) and amazing readers' reports. Also received helpful line edits as the article was being prepared. As the poster abover notes, however, I also had a 2-year wait before the article was in print.
- Submitted June 2013, initial response (revise and resubmit) in 3 months. Review of resubmission took another 3 months, followed by acceptance.
- Also a terrific experience. Submitted in early 2014; received an Initial response (R&R) in just over 2 months; review of resubmission took 1 month (acceptance). And the readers' reports were quite literally the best I've received from any journal: detailed, thoughtful, on-point.
- Great journal but long TTP (as noted above 2.5-3 y) made worse by retro access policies (even for UCP journals - no self archive, no preprints, tough to get on JStor, etc.). If any MP authors would like to join me in writing to them about this, please get in touch (Talk).
- According to SHERPA/RoMEO at least, Modern Philology seem to allow you to archive pre-prints, and post-prints and publisher's PDFs can be archived 12 months after initial publication. Is this incorrect?
- As of 2017, journal is under new editors. Time to publication is 12 months or less for articles, six months or less for book reviews (reviews by invitation only).
- Jan. 2017. Alas, not a positive experience. Received a rejection without readers' reports within 1 month of submission. Two-sentence explanation contained no substantial comments. Journal is undergoing leadership change so perhaps that played a role in the lack of reports?
- May 2017. Similar experience to above—received a rejection a month and a half after submission with no reader reports, citing lack of space and suggesting another journal for the piece. Disappointed by the lack of any detailed review but appreciative of the fast turnaround.
- Great experience here. Submitted in Oct. 2016, received a thoughtful and helpful revise and resubmit in Feb. 2017, resubmitted in March 2017, and received acceptance in May 2017. My article will appear in the Feb. 2018 issue. The journal was fast and thorough in all communication. I appreciated the timely responses and thorough editing process. Would love to submit here again!
- Also a great experience here. Submitted in April 2017, and received communication in July letting me know that the report would be roughly one month late. Received a "revise and resubmit" decision and a helpful reader's report in late August, resubmitted in late September, and received an acceptance three weeks later. The journal responded swiftly and professionally to all communication.
- Had an article accepted here in 2017. Quick decision. Reader's report was friendly. Editing process was lengthy but thorough. Managing editor was very communicative and helpful.
- Very positive experience. Submitted mid-2017 and got a request to r&r about six weeks later. The reader's report was generous but had some specific suggestions that I was expected to address point by point in a separate document. The acceptance notice came less than a week after I resubmitted. The managing editor was unfailingly helpful and super-nice.
- Oct. 2017. Highly recommend. Generous and insightful reader, and an editor who invested substantial effort in helping refine my ideas and expression. Turnaround times were exactly as promised, and the staff was courteous and professional.
- March 2019. I've worked with more than a dozen journals and MP is hands down the most professional. The editorial process is excellent, the reports are top-notch, and the journal is widely read. This is what academic publishing should be.
- January 2019. I have had an excellent experience with MP as both a reviewer and, more recently, as a contributor. The reader's report was rigorous but fair, with some helpful bibliographic recommendations that I had not considered. Best of all, the editorial staff is thorough, courteous, and responsive. I heartily concur with all the positive reviews posted above.
Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal[edit | edit source]
- Overall, a very good experience and a very organized submission process. Three months after the initial submission, I received a conditional acceptance (along with two very helpful reader reports), and three months after sending the revised essay, I received the editor's final changes and a contract.
- submitted 3/2010; received conditional acceptance w/ 2 good reader reports 12/2010; good experience with production editor; a bit slow to publication, but overall good experience
- 2011: submitted to call for special issue; r&r with four very detailed reports; conditional acceptance with equally detailed reports by the same four readers. On the slow side (3-6 months between submissions), but very meticulous.
- 2016: excellent experience! Has returned my faith in peer-review publishing and my colleagues. Submitted article in response to CfC for special issue. Received five, seriously amazing, five detailed reports within 2 months and a conditional acceptnace. They varied in tone, take, what was lauded or asked / suggested to be changed. But they were all very very constructive. Constructive criticism is an art. Realizing what a project is and helping to make it better. Revised and resubmitted w/ in a month. It is now accepted for publication. Swift and good experience.
- They are amazing! Fast turnaround (3 months from submission to decision), 4 reader reports; my essay was conditionally accepted; submitted revised version and it was accepted 1 month later (2018).
Narrative[edit | edit source]
- Really good experience. 3-4 months for initial feedback from two reviewers after submission. Both were very thorough and helpful. The much improved essay was published about one year after submission.
- Not pleased with my experience. Waited five months just to get a rejection from the head editor - he read it himself, never sent it out, and then told me it didn't fit the parameters of the journal. Could have done that much sooner!
- The kindest most helpful rejection I have ever received after approximately 3 months. The editor gave a lovely reading of my article, said it contributes substantially to the field, and told me I should not change it at all -- it is just that it wasn't the kind of article they publish. And he was right. He then offered suggestions on where to send it.
- It also took 3 months for me to get a nice rejection--but there is not even a suggestion of anonymous peer review. It's just the editor himself who reads, decides and answers your email. Pretty odd, if you ask me.
- Rejection from head editor after three months exactly.
Neophilologus[edit | edit source]
- Highly recommended. I submitted my manuscript, then four weeks after my submission they accepted it without any revision. Grat editors to work with
- Highly recommended - efficient online submission process, received reports within 2/3 months, very professional
- Reputable, rigorous, and reliable.
- I got a response within 3 months of submitting along with reviewers notes. I resubmitted with revisions and got accepted within one month. The online version was published within 6 months of my initial submission. The print version came out exactly one year from initial submission. Very professional and easy to work with.
- Very easy to work with; quick turnaround. I submitted and received revise and resubmit within 3 months. Resubmitted and received acceptance within a week. Published online within 2 months and appeared in print version 4 months after that. Very professional interactions and nice timeline.
- Very quick turnaround, professional, unproblematic process.
- Professional, positive experience - Five months between submission and revise and resubmit decision. Thorough, helpful feedback from the reader. Resubmitted the article two months later, and received acceptance notification one month later. Communication with the editor was clear and punctual, and I cannot say enough about the quality of the reviewer. Recommended.
- Short reader reports (and usually just 1 reader) but very professional and streamlined online process. 2019.
Neohelicon[edit | edit source]
- A reputable comp lit and cultural studies journal.
- Good experience publishing with them. Springer. Methodical and got the job done, re reviews and then copy-editing and publishing. About 12 months to appear in print, but online first.
- Extremely good experience. My paper was sent out for peer review around two weeks after the initial submission (February 2017). I got a revise-and-resubmit response within three weeks and was given a deadline of four months to complete the required corrections. After re-submitting in late June, I got a positive second response in late August and now (late Sept. 2017) I got the final confirmation that my contribution has been accepted for publication. Also, feedback was very helpful. Article published in Nov. 2017 (online first).
New Literary History[edit | edit source]
- NOTE: the following comments were moved from the English Literature Journals page:
- Rejection within a month from submission. Appreciated the quick decision.
- They rejected my article, but their rationale was understandable, and I would certainly submit to them again.
- Submitted an article in September 2011. Received a rejection in December with no explanation beyond "not suitable."
- also received rejection from editor in roughly two months, including a few sentences concerning why the editorial board rejected it.
- Similar experience. Took three months to give a summary rejection without review.
- Same as above. Submitted an article in April 2013, received summary rejection (quickly, at least) in June, 2013. No comments beyond "not suitable," no reports.
- Took a bit more than three months. Rejection with editor's summary of readers' reports. Since the editor said that one of the reviewers said..., I assumed that there were at least two readers. Made a request for readers' full reports. Got a reply stating that their policy is not to provide the reports.
Nineteenth-Century Literature[edit | edit source]
- Terrible experience. It took more than 15 months. Got a rejection with one reader report. I found myself speechless.
- Good experience: submitted June 2018, got an acceptance in October. Review was very thorough and offered helpful feedback.
- 2019: terrible experience. After 5 months I asked for an update...it seems like the editors had to ask their (single) reviewer several times for a report. What I got in the end was a one-sentence rejection, no report. The editors were always courteous but the reader clearly not.
- Not blind. I was referred to in reviews by my name and gender pronoun.
- As per the comment below about recent experiences, mine was pretty great: Submitted essay electronically in July 2017, received confirmation two days later, got a warm, clear, and helpful R&R about 4.5 months after that, sent revisions about two months later, checked in after 12 weeks, and received confirmation in two days of acceptance. Every interaction was rapid, pleasant, and professional. And though I obviously can't be sure either way if it's now a blind review, neither reader ever referred to be by name.
- Submitted in 2016. Received rejection with one reader report 12 months later.
- Has anyone submitted more recently? They allow electronic submissions now (as of October 2017) and they confirmed that they'd received it relatively promptly, but now I'm concerned that I'll never see it again ...
- Submitted in December 2015 and didn't hear back that they received it until I queried. Had to submit a paper version by snail mail. Waited for over a year and queried again regarding status. In January 2017 they apologized for length of time and said they would investigate. Received a three sentence rejection three months later that was incredibly generic. Not helpful. The piece is now part out of book chapter that has been accepted for publication.
- Very slow and, I get the impression, disorganized. Nearly a year to receive an R&R. I also suspect this isn't a blind review process (I was referred to in the reader's report by my proper gender pronoun).
- I submitted and got a revise-and-resubmit response from the editor about a month later. Then it went to a reader; I got the reader's report about seven months later, with another revise and resubmit; about seven months later the article was accepted. It was published about six months after that. So, almost two years from submission until the piece actually appeared--but the feedback from both editor and reader was generous and extremely helpful.
- Submitted in December 2011; still waiting in April 2012. I contacted them (to ask a policy question, not to check the status of the submission) in mid-March and the editorial assistant volunteered they're still waiting on one reader. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but I hope to hear soon. I really wish they'd begin accepting electronic submissions
- Please note: not a blind review process. Reader's report called me by my surname, and speculated about my age, in addition to making other snide, gendered insinuations. A very disappointing result after waiting a year. I would hesitate to share this information online, but since I was not allowed to protect my own identity in their review process, I feel that "outing" this journal to potential submitters is only fair.
- Had a similar experience to the commenter above. Not blind, and a weird, condescending reviewer.
- Sent in a submission and waited for the confirmation of receipt for two months. Finally contacted the editor by email and didn't receive a response for over a month. When they couldn't find the manuscript, they let me submit by email. After almost a full year (I emailed after 6 months, received a reply after a few weeks saying that there were still waiting), I received a rejection with mostly vague and unhelpful comments - the piece was later accepted elsewhere with no revisions.
- Sent in my manuscript in August 2012 and received a two-page single-spaced rejection letter from the editor three months later. S/he had problems with the quality of my research and made some vague suggestion for resubmitting elsewhere. The letter rambled on and was full of typos. This journal requires a hard copy plus return postage.
- Sent in a manuscript in October 2012, received an R&R in March 2013 with comments from one peer reviewer. Peer reviewer asked for "higher critical stakes" and "more context for non-specialsts." Re-sent manuscript for additional peer reviews, waited two months, wrote an email to confirm receipt. Managing editor replied that it was currently being read by two more readers; editor replied with some encouraging feedback. I got my hopes up, but I received a rejection in September 2013. I was disappointed with the two additional peer reviews -- editor admitted that one reader was not giving me a "fair hearing," but the other reader concluded that my article was lacking in "critical weight" for NCL. The original peer reviewer's comments and the editor's comments were both very helpful; I'm submitting to another journal with high hopes.
nonsite[edit | edit source]
Novel: A Forum on Fiction[edit | edit source]
- Very good experiences with a rejection (circa 2005) and an acceptance (circa 2010). In both cases, turn-around time great (4 months or less), and feedback was really helpful. Lived up to their good reputation.
- NOTE: the following comment was moved from English Literature Journals:
- Rejected my work, but did so promptly and reasonably, and I would submit to them again. This is a journal it pays to actually read in order to see just what they are likely to publish.
- Rejected after three months, with apologies for the delayed response. Brief quote from reader's report claiming that the fit was not ideal, with praise for the article and suggested journal to submit to next.
- Good God! Kept an article for 15+ months (despite several inquiries as to status). Finally received obnoxious 2-sentence rejection from Editor with no feedback, readers' reports, etc. Have heard similar stories from others.
- Moved quickly: from submission to acceptance took 3 months.
- Disappointed with my experience here. Two submissions; in both cases, the rejections--justified--were prompt but the reader reports were contradictory, hasty, and frankly unkind. Had the impression that reader/ editor hadn't read the piece very carefully--would have prefered a simple "No" to the feedback I got.
- Dissapointed here as well. After a long wait, I received a terrific, thorough response from the single external reader. After revising and resubmitting (and another very long wait), I received a rather nasty letter from the editor that completely contradicted the reader's report. Among other things, she made it clear that the author I chose to write about was not someone the journal would ever take seriously (you'd think this would have been communicated to me before asking me to resubmit....). Only thing that didn't make it a complete waste of time was that, thanks to the helpful reader's report, the revised article was quickly accepted elsewhere (with no R&R this time around). [ADDENDUM--in response to the commentor below: looks like my experience isn't unique. In my case, however, the managing editor was at least willing to sign the snarky letter herself.
- I feel for the poor graduate student who must sign her name to the incredibly snarky/bitchy comments that the managing editor writes on her rejection letters. I'm sorry if my article ended up being critical of a book you came out with ten years ago but there is neither need to be so incredibly catty, nor to use a proxy for your cattiness.
- Refuses to accept submissions in Chicago citation style. It seems like a deep injustice that editors require authors to format according to their specifications merely to *consider* them for review. One of the deep, unrecorded, injustices, in the academic publishing world...I have an article I thought was perfect for this journal, but given the comments above, I doubt it's worth my time converting the formatting only to be dissappointed post-submission. Thoughts?
- In response to the query directly above: if Novel is your preferred venue, I'd take the time to make the switch rather quickly to get the article reviewed. However, if Novel is among one of several goodjournals that you are considering, you may want to send it first to an MLA-friendly journal for review and in the meantime make the formatting switch in the event that the MLA-friendly journal doesn't work out.
- Could someone comment: if you had a choice between publishing here and Texas Studies in Literature and Language, what would be your preference?
- My sense is that Novel has a wider readership and is cited more often. (I don't see too many TSLL on bibliographies or lists of works cited.
- dissappointed by a relatively shallow (although well-intentioned) review. The reason given for rejection was that the author was "obscure" (and the reviewer managed to get wrong very basic details about my text). Roughly 3 months turn around. One of the few journals that requires hard copies and that is not flexible with respect to citation style. In my view, they are not worth working with, when so many other journals are more fleixble.
- Very positive experience. Two months between initial submission and "conditional acceptance" pending changes. Appeared in print a year later. Most rigorous editing and copyediting I've gotten anywhere. Would recommend them very highly.
- Despite having my article rejected, my experience with Novel was a positive one: quick turnaround (roughly six weeks), with a friendly and constructive reader's report. The feedback from that report actually helped me revise my piece to point where it was accepted by an even better venue.
- Mean-spirited response from the editor. Have heard rumors that the peer-review process is not blind.
- Initial submission July 2019, they asked for a pretty substantial R&R within about a month. I decided it was worth my time to rework article according to reader's very specific and helpful suggestions and resubmitted end of September 2019. Received request for a second R&R in November 2019, again with pretty major revisions. Revised again according to their feedback, resubmitted January 2020, and was finally accepted in February 2020. Even though it ended up being a ton of work on my part, the feedback I received from my first reader and then directly from the editorial board was extremely helpful, and all communications were prompt and professional. Article is coming out November 2020. Considering several rounds of substantial revisions, 16 months from submission to publication seems not at all bad. Should note that it seems like final publication decisions are made directly by editorial board via a vote.
October[edit | edit source]
- Horrible! They should simply announce that they don't accept unsolicited submissions, because no one reads them anyway (which one would expect would speed up the process of rejections, but for some reason it doesn't at all).
- Is thus journal actually reading submissions? Something I sent a year ago was entirely ignored and published elsewhere.
- October rarely publishes work not connected directly to members of its editorial board.
- It look them a year and a half (!) before they finally rejected my submission.
- Uncommunicative - rejected after 6 months, only after my reminders, with no evidence of peer review and no comments.
- Eight months have passed since I submitted and I have received no response. I sent a follow-up email after six months and did not receive a response to that either.
Orbis Litterarum[edit | edit source]
- Had a great experience with them. Submitted an article and received R&R in three months. Submitted a revised version and received the final decision of acceptance in one month. It took one year, though, to have my article published.
- Fantastic experience with them. After about three months, the editor accepted my article "in its current form." One reviewer had said no, & the other had said absolutely, yes, so the editor/s made the decision to accept it. The copy-editor who switched my documentation style to theirs and did some minor editing was quick and accessible. This experience was among the best I've had with submissions.
Opuscula : Short Texts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance[edit | edit source]
- Short turnaround time (~3 months); helpful feedback from readers. Good content management system where you can check the status of your article.
- good reader reports; reasonable time to hear from readers. can't tell if they publish articles one at a time or together as a complete volume.
Oxford Art Journal[edit | edit source]
- Very slow (over 6 months and then had to be prompted) and very cursory rejection, with absolutely no explanation or comment on the article submitted.
PLJ : Pennsylvania Literary Journal[edit | edit source]
Philological Quarterly[edit | edit source]
- Had a great experience with them in 2016. Editor was prompt, kind, professional. All good until after the proofs, when errors were introduced into the article! Frustrating and nothing can be done. But I would still publish there again because of the superb editor Eric Gidal.
- Had an excellent experience with them. From submission to acceptance was less than a month; acceptance also came with detailed and insightful readers' reports that improved the essay considerably.
- Yes, agreed. Very helpful and generous readers reports on submission and then again on revision. Essay was much improved.
- Fantastic as well. 3 weeks to get a very thorough review on an article outside their usual field. Incredibly helpful and communicative editor.
- My experience was very similar. When I dealt with them in the summer of 2009 it took them about two and a half months to accept an essay. In fact, they sent the first reader report within two weeks. It came out the following winter and in the meantime the editor was extremely nice & helpful, improving the essay (which started life as a piece of barely disguised graduate coursework) a great deal. I am told they are somewhat unusual in that they tend to send full reader reports to the author as soon as they receive them.
- Does anyone know why PQ has not published an issue since early 2012? Are they publishing regularly and just behind or are they on hiatus? A: They are publishing regularly, new issues are just being back-dated. I had an article published with them a couple of years ago where the cover date was earlier than the article was even written. OP: Thanks so much (and what excellent news, because last year is actually when I need this article to have been published!)
- Fantastic: revise and resubmit in five weeks with thorough, encouraging, and incredibly helpful reader reports. Revisions accepted within two months--this, over the summer--and essay slated for print within three months (also, as above, backdated). The editor clearly knows the lay of a great swath of literary land, as colleagues in fields differing from mine report similarly rich experiences. [Posted September 2014]
- An absolute pleasure working with the editor, who always responded in a timely, courteous, and encouraging manner. My submission got mixed reviews at first but after sending in a revision I received an acceptance letter within a few weeks.
- Rude reader's report with no useful feedback.
- Submitted January 2016, received warm revise and resubmit in April of that year, and an acceptance the day after(!) my resubmission. Article was printed that fall. Editor was wonderful to work with and the process was remarkably fast.
- [May 2018] - The editor can be incredibly condescending, and I would suggest not letting him know if you are a graduate student or early career scholar.
Philosophy and Literature[edit | edit source]
- submitted an article 3/2010; received R&R 8/2010; I submitted a revised version 12/2010 and received no response; I wrote again later (approx. 2/2011) to inquire and was told that the article had been accepted w/o any info re pub date; wrote again 3/2012 to inquire and editor is not responding to my emails. Can anyone advise how I should proceed? I have always respected this journal, but have found the current set of editors to be singularly unhelpful, and would not publish here again. Also, no evident peer-review process.
- update from submitter above (10/2012). more than 2 and 1/2 years (!!) following my original submission, I have finally received a contract to sign and been informed the article will appear in the next issue. Publishing here has been the worst experience I have ever had; countless queries have gone unanswered and there was no peer-review process at all. I am aware that the founder of the journal died during the time that my article languished. My guess is that the current editor doesn't care about the journal and is just trying to bring it to a close. I continue to believe the journal fills an important niche in literary studies, but there is no longer any editorial infrastructure. My guess is that the journal will disappear in the next couple of years. I would very strongly advise against submitting or publishing here.
- Submitted an article and got a quick rejection after a month. The rejection was a form letter that stated there were no readers' reports due to having a small editorial team, which is weird since the editorial team wouldn't be generating the reports -- the readers would. Maybe they don't actually have a peer-review process and all decisions are made by the editor(s)? Not terribly ethical to claim peer-review status in that case. [posted Oct. 2012]
- I had the same experience - submitted an article and recieved a rejection after about weeks. Because the article was of an unconventional form for the journal - an extended review essay - I wasn't sure that they would send it out to external reviewers, which is certainly their prerogative. But the rejection letter states, "We are sorry to have to say that we cannot provide readers' reports for declined submissions. We have a very small staff at the journal and the large number of submissions makes this impossible; we hope you will understand." What I understand is that this is almost certainly a flat out lie. It is highly unlikely that the essay recieved reader reports in such a short time period. The editors have every right to reject an essay before sending it out for peer review, but it is insulting to be told that an article has been peer reviewed (though we can't show you what they've said!) when it hasn't been. The best I can say is that at least they lied to me quickly. [Posted Dec. 2012]
- I had submitted two articles here. Each took about a month and received a rejection. Both rejection letters appear similar. I'm suspicious that the articles were not sent out for review and were simply read by the editor(s) as well. Both letters didn't mention readers' reports. I submitted these articles to other journals (top ones), and they were sent out for review. I would say that this journal seems less willing to send articles out for reasons I don't know of. [posted Mar. 2014]
- Does anyone know why the October 2015 issue of Philosophy and Literature has not appeared yet? It's now March 2016. Is this an indication of editorial problems?
PMLA[edit | edit source]
- Do NOT submit to this journal if time is an issue for you. If you're a grad student, a VAP, or on a tenure clock, avoid. My entire journey from initial submission to final rejection was two years--two years I'll never get back. On the upside, I will say that the readers were dutiful, responsible, and very respectful in their feedback.They gave a lot of "tough but fair" criticism that helped me make the article better. After a lengthy revision process, I sent it back and the readers recommended it for publication with glowing reports. Then it went to the editorial board, which rejected it. That's fine, that's their right, but the cursory report I got back from the editor (summarizing the editorial board comments) was a bit bizarre. I was criticized for making an argument that I actually did not make. In fact, I took pains at every turn to say "this is NOT the argument I'm making and here's why." I sent the article to another journal, but I doubt it'll see the light of day, and now I've washed out of academia, having failed to secure a TT job. My biggest regret is the fact that I spent so much time chasing this journal. The readers thought it was publishable, so had I sent it to another journal, it'd probably be in print by now. A good journal for the tenured and the young. If your time is limited--or you've got a terminal disease or something--don't go here.
- Bizarre experience: two very positive readers' reports, both of which strongly and explicitly recommended publication, made one minor suggestion each for revision (both of which I would have been happy to make), and it got rejected with one terse paragraph from the editor in chief that did not explain why. I published it elsewhere quickly, but felt I waited a long time to be really poorly treated.
- I received timely responses but not helpful ones. The first two readers were split, third reader recommended reject. Received three very short reports praising my writing, argumentation, and readings and admitting the article makes a significant contribution but asserting that without a heavily theoretical approach the piece could not possibly interest PMLA's readers. (Even the R&R said this, so it would have been a "major revision" -- a totally different article, in fact. Also, really, no one could be interested in an interesting and not-very-obscure subject well explained and analyzed in a fresh way?) All suggested sending as-is elsewhere -- the tie-breaker "expert" suggested a journal that has been defunct for seven years -- can't tell if that's petty meanness or incompetence. Ultimately no feedback to use to revise as the piece needs no revision. I think at least some substantive commentary should have been offered to justify the rejection adequately, if not to advise me on how to improve the thing. If PMLA is still the major journal in the field, "all scholarly methods" should actually be considered equal -- but they are not. There is much amiss in our discipline(s).
- After around 4 Months, received reports from two reviewers, which were highly glowing ( in retrospect, I would prefer harsher reviews at this stage). Then I revised and resubmitted. Then my article was sent to the Editorial board (they only have meetings three or four times per year), and got a rejection. From submission to rejection was 12 months. I felt that they did not choose reviewers properly. As an early career researcher, I was very hurt. Although it is a necessary lesson to learn, I do wish they could give proper reviews in the first round.
- After an R&R for 1/2 reviewers the article was recommended to the board for publication which ultimately rejected it. The rationale was vague and unrelated to the article. The review process was not blind. I was told who the reviewer was-- presumably he knew who I was. From revision, to recommendation to publish, to rejection the process took 1 year. A very strange system.
- Update (Feb. 2018) to confirm the consensus here still holds. PMLA remains a prompt, egalitarian, and immensely professional venue. For me, the process was a long one (original submission in 10/16, two subsequent R&Rs), but the work was improved by every step of the process and eventually accepted. Thorough, careful readers, and great staff handling the communications. One item to note is that the editorial board can issue R&Rs in addition to individual readers.
- Submitted January of 2017. Split decision in April. Rejection in June. Based on comments here, I expected slightly more detailed reader reports. In any case, the comments should help for submission elsewhere.
- Does anyone have experience submitting to PMLA for a special topic issue? What, if anything, is different about the process? Do the guest editors take the place of the editorial board in making final decisions? What to make of the bit about "processed as received" in this bit from the website description of the process: "Manuscripts may be submitted anytime before the deadline and are processed as received"? Thanks for any advice.
- Have refereed for them which was a privilege, When I publish with them I know I will have truly arrived.
- Impressively quick responses and thorough feedback. Made it to editorial board, where it was rejected, but very heartened by entire process.
- First readers (2 months) disagreed in recommendations, took another 4 months (rather than the projected 4 to 6 weeks) to get third reader's split vote (no). Excellent, expert suggestions, though, and one suggested next-best journals to send to after minor revisions.
- Also extremely impressed by the quick response. Received revise and resubmit about two months after submitting original article. Two thorough and helpful readers' reports.
- Ditto, though it was ultimately rejected. Beware!-- they seem to give R&Rs quite freely and then reject most of these submissions at their final editorial board meeting. Have spoken to a large number of colleagues who have had the same experience.
- In response to the last comment: only 15% of submissions make to to the editorial board, so that's not the case.
- I have always (and frequently) heard that 15% figure tossed around in relation to the editorial board meeting itself; that is, only 15% of submissions forwarded to the board get chosen for publication.
- Nope. In fact, the letter they send to tell you that your work made it to the Editorial Board states, "although only 15% of all articles submitted to PMLA are recommended to the board, favorable recommendations by specialists do not ensure that the board will accept an article. In fact, the board typically rejects more than half of the articles it reviews." This is a direct quote from their acceptance letter. So, it's not some random percentage that gets thrown around. I would guess that either your anecdotal evidence isn't representative of the real numbers, or you might want to take "i made it to the editorial board" statements from colleagues with a grain of salt.
- Long, frustrating experience here. Like many others, got an R&R with three reader's reports ranging from enthusiastic and helpful to tepid and uninterested. Returned and, 6 months later, rejected with three more reports. Evidently, they'd had to find an extra reader because the recommendations conflicted. Mostly submitted for the experience & reports so I wasn't surprised to be rejected, but I wish they'd have done it with a teeny bit more alacrity.
- Submitted in September, had news of split reviews in December, and a tiebreaker (no) in March. The readers reports are outstanding, and I am lucky to have three. Overall a slightly slow process, but the feedback is helpful, encouraging, and thorough.
- Very good experience here - very quick turnaround, helpful, thorough readers' reports, minor revisions made before submission to editorial board, who accepted the article with further minor revisions. Great email communication if you ask for it, although their default is postal which is difficult if you're not in the US. x2: one reader asked to reread the article after revisions, and was happy -- nicely interactive process. took about 1.5 years to contract, but that was half my own doing with the revisions)
- For those who have submitted to PMLA, was your MLA membership verified before the submission was processed? My membership has lapsed, and I hesitate to renew it simply in order to submit to PMLA. Thanks for any information on this!
- Mine was current when I submitted but the reader's reports were worth the membership fee!
- You have to have an active memebership for PMLA. If you are lucky to have it sent to reviewers (they notified me of doing so within one month or so), then it is worth the money.
- Question: Has anyone with split reviews eventually gotten accepted, or is it safe to assume that split reviews mean a snowball's chance in hell?
- Mine had split reviews and was accepted.
- Mine too. Definitely made the whole process considerably longer. From first submission to actual appearance of article: 2 years 9 months of actual calendar time.
- Question: What experience(s) have people had with the "Little-Known Documents" section of the PMLA? From what I understand, the review process of these submissions is a little different, but I have no idea of the timeline.
- I'd like to know too. The wording in the CFP implies that decisions about Little Known Documents are made solely by the editorial board, not by independent reviewers. In that case I would think that the speed of the review process would be according to the board's schedule.
- Regarding Little-Known Documents,.an R&R response took about 8 months to arrive. I received 1 report.
- The process for Little-Known Documents is the same as the process for any other submission. Submit -> Reviewer report(s) -> R&R -> Final editorial board decision. As the comment below points out, the process can be slow.
- Ok, so the way things work here is as follows: they send papers out for review, which can take up to 8 weeks. Add another 6 weeks if there's a split review and they need a 3rd reader's report. If there are two positive reports, you are invited to resubmit for consideration by the editorial board (which only accepts 15-20% of the papers it reads). The editorial board meets only three times per year, in October, January/February and May, so you could be lucky and be considered quickly or else have to wait months and months before the next meeting. Bottom line: being rejected by PMLA can happen in weeks, being accepted can take a year.
- Sometimes they just send your submission upstairs for editorial review without asking for an R&R
- Got my MS mailed back about 3 months later, with a rejection letter and two detailed readers' reports. Disappointing not to get in, but the reports are helpful.
- how long have others had to wait for confirmation of submission having been received? I have been waiting 9+days, with no response--in some places that is normal, but I would expect a faster response from PMLA, esp. given the glowing accounts here. I have also written to PMLA on two separate occasions with submission-related questions and there was no response until I asked twice. So I am more struck by their slowness and unprofessionalism (given that it is the MLA), and hope others can share impressions.
- Question: Is there a process at this journal for requesting email correspondence? And does email limit the kind of feedback one receives?
- No process, you just send them an email requesting it. What they send you back is the same stuff they would mail out, in PDF format.
- One of my best journal submission experiences. Had three reviews (the first two were split) in about two months. I did revisions to the best of my judgement, though I can't recall if the essay went out to the readers again. The editorial board meeting was a few months later, and my essay was accepted. Because of the fast turnaround time and the generally high quality of the reports (including the negative one), I suggest to colleagues that they submit to PMLA if at all possible. Remarkably thorough and knowledgeable copyediting, including editing for style, ambiguity, etc. Really, really great experience.
- does anyone know whether they accept submissions in Chicago style for the initial round of reviews?
- The question is sort of funny (it's PMLA we're talking about) but the fact is, they will turn away and ask you to re-send anything that's formatted incorrectly.
- if there is no response after submission, does that mean that the article is under review? I submitted a month ago (8/2014), and have followed up once, and it has been total silence. And I signed up for the MLA just to be able to submit to PMLA, having been persuaded by the comments here that it was worthwhile! So far, my experience has been quite different from what is reported here.
- If you haven't heard anything, then one of two things has happened: either your article is out for review, or it was lost in the mail. More likely the former. They are not always great at keeping submitters updated as to the status of their submissions, and decisions of any kind can take a long time.
- I also submitted recently (Sep. 2014) via email without receiving any kind of confirmation.
- A major concern with this journal is that it exclusively publishes articles by scholars from major research universities. To me, this suggests, quite clearly, that the journal is not truly peer-reviewed -- it is a clubbish, elitist forum. I have never seen an article from someone from a non-research university, despite the fact that such scholars represent 90% of the academy/mla membership.
- This isn't accurate or fair. A colleague of mine had a piece accepted just a few months ago, when that colleague was an unaffiliated (i.e., unemployed) recent Ph.D. from a Canadian university. And at no point during the submission or review process are you prompted to provide an affiliation.
- No, it is objectively accurate.
- I'm at a small regional state school and they accepted my article.
Question: can I glean anything from a long review process--over five months with only confirmation that the essay is out for review? Are essays ever sent to the board without letting the author know first?
- I don't have any insights into the journal's process, but I've also been waiting more than 5 months with no reader reports or decision. I wrote at the 4 1/2 month mark to request a status update, but that email has gone unanswered. I hope we both hear something soon!
- I've also been waiting over 4 months now. Didn't receive confirmation that the ms was under review, and two follow up emails went unanswered.
- There seems to be a trend towards greater inefficiency and slowness. I waited about 3 months for the article to go out for review, and its been three+ more months since. I've lost track!
- I found the journal staff and editor responsive, and I am grateful for that. But, I also found that some gentle prodding was helpful in generating responses to questions of process and timeline. And, like others on this list, I find the reader reports helpful for conceiving of revisions. But, at least one of the three reports seemed aimed at impressing the editor more than addressing the author of the essay under review.
- 2016: Submitted article. Within a month, it was assigned reviewers. And within 9 weeks I had two very helpful readers reports. They were detailed, thorough and substantive. They did not accept the article for publication. Very helpful for revising and resubmitting elsewhere. I will definitely resubmit. Great process. Great communication.
Question: What experiences have people had with getting articles that are over the 9,000 word limit published in PMLA? Is it possible to get an exceptionally long article published in the journal, even when it's not part of a special issue?
Poetics Today[edit | edit source]
- Very good experience with this journal. Time from submission to first reports was longish - eight months. First received a quick note from the editor, I think trying to feel out my amenability to suggestions and further work. This was followed a week or so later (after an amenable sounding email from me) with a reader's report and extensive commentary from the editor, and then some correspondence between us, and a good deal of work by me. Final acceptance came a few weeks after re-sub. Publication agreement six months later. Final publication four months after that. Total time from acceptance to publication was about ten months. My impression was that my article received generous attention from the Meir Sternberg, the editor, who was also willing to work fairly closely with me during revision. Copyediting and typesetting from Duke was quite good as well.
- Absolutely horrible. Submitted there twice: in both cases, it took them over a year to reject me (without readers' reports). In both cases, I submitted my papers elsewhere (also to very highly acclaimed journals) without any changes made, and had them accepted in both cases (one without revisions and the other with minor revisions). I heard from many people that Sternberg works closely with authors whose articles he accepts (which improves these articles and thus the journal), but is otherwise very flaky. Will probably not submit there again, unless the editor changes.
- Editor has changed. Brian McHale is the new editor and he is highly professional.
- I had my essay accepted after a 9-month review by two anonymous peers. One review was positive, and the other one rather critical of my work. Both reviews were helpful. The editor was cordial in communication. McHale asked me to revise the essay and invited to resubmit. In about two months after the resubmission, the journal accepted the essay for publication. From acceptance to publication it will take about three years. The exact date of publication remains unclear.
Polygraph[edit | edit source]
- 2/2019: Is back up and running again, just released two issues in the past few months
- Respected, but not peer reviewed, graduate-student-run journal operating out of the Duke University Graduate Program in Literature. Generally publishes theme issues once a year.
- Looks dead: No new issues in a few years. Such is the fate of so many grad journals.
Postmodern Culture[edit | edit source]
- Because PMC is both long-standing and electronic only, it offers a wider audience than a lot of journals--in other words it's easier to find and cite and so there seem to be a lot of citations of it. Response time varies. The editorial staff is sympathetic to requests for faster response and tries to get them from the readers with limited success. Editorial staff make many stylistic comments, which not everyone likes, but it can be helpful.
Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism[edit | edit source]
- got accepted with minor revisions on first try, as a dissertating candidate. really helpful, in need of more submissions, and great editor in Clare Simmons!
Public Culture[edit | edit source]
- the main email address (firstname.lastname@example.org) seems to be nonfuctional and email keeps bouncing back. The section of their webpage for submitting material is similarly defunct. Has anyone communicated with them recently? Very odd.
- (2020) almost 9 months for a rejection, with minimal feedback. Editorial transition means that they are slow and disorganized.
Qui Parle[edit | edit source]
Religion & Literature[edit | edit source]
- Submitted March 2013; received revise and resubmit July 2013. Three readers' reports, which were detailed and constructively critical. Resubmitted in late December 2014; article accepted in April 2014. Editorial staff have been helpful and courteous throughout the process.
- I had a fairly confusing experience with them a few years ago. They sent my article back with three different, extensive, and very helpful reports on my article. And they asked me to revise and resubmit. The reports were very helpful, and I did revise the article for two months and resubmitted. Two weeks later I received a very irritated letter from the editor saying that I had already sent this article, it had been rejected, and to stop wasting their time. Well, it wasted two months of my time. I'd say the heck with them, but they are such a good journal.
- Submitted January 2013; received R&R April 2013 with two extensive and helpful reader reports. Revised according to suggestion and resubmitted September 2013. About six weeks later, received provisional acceptance with reports from same two readers, one containing further suggestions for revision and a two-month deadline for final copy. All editorial staff has been friendly and helpful--so far a good experience.
- Good experience here too. Constructive reports and fast turnaround time.
Renaissance Drama[edit | edit source]
- Submitted in January 2015, received a rejection but with a fair and helpful report in May 2015.
- Submitted in June 2012, received revise and resubmit along with two detailed, fair, and useful reports in January 2013. Currently in process as of 3/2013, will update with final result.
- Submitted in July 2015, still have not heard back as of February 2016. Not sure what is going on there, but the turnaround time seems to have dramatically increased.
- 11 month-long wait from submission to readers' reports and rejection. I appreciated having the readers' reports, but the wait-time was...astonishing.
- Submitted in October 2017, wrote a follow-up in April 2018. Good and helpful R&R.
- Submitted in August 2018. After no contact for 9 months, followed up in May 2019 and learned the submission had not yet been sent out to readers. Finally received a R&R in November 2019. Submitted revision in January 2020. No response as of end of June 2020, despite writing to both editors. Nearly 2 years and still no decision. This is not professional.
Renaissance Quarterly[edit | edit source]
- I haven't submitted here, but I've heard that they often ask literary scholars to expand their inquiry into other fields like art history, music, etc. Anyone who has submitted here care to share? (Thanks for the useful info!)
- In response to the above: I don't think it's generally true that literary scholars are asked to expand their arguments into fields unfamiliar to them, but rather that the stakes of that argument should be compelling and useful to scholars outside one's own field. An essay that offers a new interpretation of a single work of Renaissance literature, even if it is very adept, might not get accepted, while an essay that tackles a larger intellectual or philosophical problem largely through the lens of literary texts (but also reaching beyond that focus) will stand a better chance: see recent essays by Rhodri Lewis and Rebecca Lemon for articles that succeed on this count. (I've been an active reader in several different literary fields for RQ since 2005 or so.)
- Terrific, if rigorous experience submitting and publishing here. Submitted an article in about late summer 2017; received two reports within three months. Both were positive, but one pushed for expansion in several areas (more context, basically--I think to reach scholars in adjacent fields--but I managed that with a new paragraph here and there, and probably only added about 1000 words of text total). Resubmitted a few months later, and both readers recommended publication. It then went to a THIRD reader, which surprised me, but s/he was given a limited brief, addressing just one aspect of the article. S/he had very helpful targeted suggestions for additional shoring up of the argument, which I was happy to do. The copyediting was incredibly thorough and helpful. Even with three readers and lots of feedback, my article came out roughly 18 months after first submission.
- I had a fantastic experience publishing in RQ a few years back (different articles editor, but the new one is even more on top of things). Two positive readers' reports that didn't conflict each other, received within six weeks of submission. Extensive copy-editing by an extremely competent editor, and the article was out within a year. I now read for RQ and they run a tight ship: reviewers are hounded with emails if they don't submit reviews within around 6 weeks. One tip: they get tons of submissions on English literature and Italian history/art history but far less on almost every other field. So if you are working in a small field (or something truly interdisciplinary) give it a shot.
- Great experience for essay published in 2020: two readers reports and revise-and-resubmit feedback from editor were excellent; copy-editing was rigorous and thorough. My essay was vastly improved thanks to the detailed feedback. It was already interdisciplinary, but they did ask me to address more art historical issues than I originally discussed. This only ended up making the essay better.
- Any more recent experiences here that you would share?
- Dec. 2016: had a perfectly lovely experience here, with an article submitted in early September, received two readers' reports, both positive helpful, in late November, with acceptance (pending minor revisions) even though I was initially told to expect the process to take 5-8 months. The article will appear in winter or spring 2018, so roughly 1.5 years from submission to publication.
Renaissance Studies[edit | edit source]
- Good experience here last year. Quick turn around and acceptance after edits. Took over a year after acceptance to come out in print, but they had it up online very quickly after I approved the galleys. From MS submission to up online was about 8 or 9 months, which includes peer review and my own 2-month editing time.
- March 2017: Good, professional experience here, despite rejection. Submitted in Jan. 2017 and received two thoughtful and thorough reader's reports within 2 months.
- Great experience with them in 2016 - professional, 6 week turnaround. Two readers' reports, not exactly brilliant in their astuteness but not unhelpful, concrete and fair suggestions for minor corrections/ additions and with a quick response/ acceptance after resubmission.
- I had a great experience with this journal in 2019-20. I got an R&R, with a response in around 2 months. After my resubmission, they sent it to a third reader who had more suggestions for ways to improve before it could be published. I found the editor and all of the readers they chose to be very constructive and encouraging and as an early career scholar this was so important to me. It took about a year between acceptance and final publication, but this was mitigated by the fact that the early view article was up quite quickly.
Representations[edit | edit source]
- Once waited a year for a useless one-sentence rejection from this journal. No reader report, just a quote from an editorial board meeting about the ms. not being a fit.
- submitted 2/2012. still out with readers as of 8/2012. update: Still waiting as of 9/2012. update on 10/12: I wrote yet again to the office and requested to know the status. They told me that a rejection letter had been sent on 7/2012 (when I queried in August 2012 I was told that the ms. was with the second reviewer. Thoughtful comments, but the clerical error was a bit frustrating.
- Submitted something towards the end of April (2013), just got it back at the end of July with a short note indicating that the piece is "not quite right for Representations" with no further comments.
- Submitted something in late June 2013 and received in late July 2013 what seems to be an identical 1-paragraph response about the piece being "not quite right for Representations."
- Submitted a piece in Nov, 2012. Rejected March, 2013 with only a few lines of (oddly positive) feedback. No reports provided.
- Submitted a piece and then received some scolding because I didn't include an abstract of the article. Article was rejected after a few months. I was sent an excerpt (really, a few lines) from a reader's report, but the comment was very vague and therefore unhelpful.
- Not a blind review at this journal. 4 months for a rejection, with two excerpts from readers' reports, both about 4-5 sentences, and quite vague and condescending.
Restoration[edit | edit source]
-  Excellent Experience. Editors are professional and responsive. Quick Review (3 months), for R&R with two detailed and very helpful readers reports.
- Anyone have any recent experiences with this journal? Supposedly encourage work from early career scholars?
-  Journal's website still indicates that it encourages work from early career scholars. Submitted in early May and received prompt confirmation of submission. In early October (exactly 5 months after original submission), received e-mail that one of the reviewers had fallen through and a search for a second reviewer was under way; e-mail included apologies for delay and assurance that essay was still under consideration. UPDATE: Still awaiting decision Jan. 2018, 8 months after original submission.
- Submitted in May 2017, heard back in October/November 2017, with two readers' reports that responded to different aspects of the article, which was nice. I returned a revised version February 2018, and it has since been accepted. Communication was professional and collegial, and they're quick to respond. I would recommend this journal for people who want to hear from peers who have a sincere investment in this field.
Romanic Review[edit | edit source]
- Got accepted, but it took them a while. The readers' reports were helpful.
The Seventeenth Century[edit | edit source]
- Very fast response. Reader, a brilliant proofreader, offered ignorant suggestions.
Sexualities[edit | edit source]
- I will never submit here again. Emailed the editor to ask if my submission was under review after 6 months, to which the editor replied that they were trying to find appropriate reviewers. Waited another 3 months and sent another email to ask about the status of my paper. Then received an email from one of the chief editors, which did not contain even one grammatically correct english sentence (even the name of the journal was spelt incorrectly). The email simply said that the article didn't fit the aim and goals of the journal, which I thought was really surprising. Overall, the last email I received made me think that my submission was not read at all.
Social Text[edit | edit source]
- I also had a great experience: a two month + 1 day turn around for a response (albeit, it was quite a brief response). I received a no, but it was a quick no. I appreciated that and will be submitting work that is a better fit in the future.
- I've had an overall fantastic experience with Social Text: a four month turn around for reader reports (not super short but still within expected time), short but substantive criticism in the reports with pointed advice from the editors about revisions, and a phenomenal copy-editing experience. They also gave me a lot of leeway to add pictures and length where needed. I think because of some shifts in their essay pipe-line they were able to fit my essay into a forthcoming issue within five months of the final revised essay, even though it usually takes about a year. The managing editor was very communicative with me throughout the process. I usually anticipate a six-month turn around time for top tier journals so I would have been fine if it had been that long but am grateful that it happened to be less. I think I always expect a lot of slowness and irregularity in communication for journals of this caliber, and in this case, I got the best outcome.
- very negative experience: disorganized editorial board, slow process, communication problems
- Great experience, quick turnaround. Not a ton of reader’s reports but tons of feedback from the editor, also great exposure in the field. Really glad I worked with them.
- 10 months under review, rejected, no reader reports, and a very generic e-mail about the editorial collective interests. E-mailed at the 6-month mark, got a very cordial response saying that it was "still under consideration by the editorial collective."
- Bad experience: over a year for a rejection with no reviews. When I asked for readers' reports, I was told they rely on oral reports.
- 17 months from submission to publication. Thorough and insightful reader reports. Great experience overall.
- 18 months from submission to publication. Two reader reports, careful and professional editorial board and staff.
- SLOW. For those of you with 3 month turnarounds, it seems like you are working with a totally different journal. I have submitted to Social Text a few times now and 6 months from submission to feedback is a MINIMUM for me. I'm not sure what accounts for the difference in turnaround times, but I wish I did. I'd rather be on the 3 month list than the 6+ month list.
- Fast--I received a decision two months from initial submission--but provides no reports or feedback for rejected submissions. (2012)
- Very slow for me. Submitted essay 11/2011 and still no response as of 8/2012.
- Very good experience- three months from submission to acceptance. Smart reader reports. They kept me well informed of where the paper was in the publication process, and were professional throughout
- Terrible experience. Did not receive acknowledgement that my article was received. Inquired after two weeks, was told to wait to hear about the article being passed on to review. Didn't hear after 3 months, inquired again. Was told the article was submitted to be refereed a month prior. Inquired again at 6 months, still no word. They seem unorganized. Very difficult to get in touch with the editors. (2013)
- Bad experiece for me too. Editorial staff seems disorganized, possibly in transition. Did not answer multiple query letters. Was hoping for a quick turn around based on reports above. Will see... (8/2013)
- I third having a bad experience with this journal. After emailing the editorial staff repeatedly over a few months, I was told that the journal was in transition. I was also told I would be given word of the article's status in September (no update has come). The article has been under review for 8 months. (10/1/2013)
- Great experience - about three months from submission to acceptance. They do seem to change in-house personnel a lot so I can imagine how things would fall through the cracks.
- Bad experience. Had submitted something to them normally and told it couldnt be reviewed because it was about X country, and they were going to publish a special issue on it in the near-ish future, ie next year. Because stupid eurocentrism, that's why. Then tried those special issue editors, who were however not actually in the X field and just doing a pet project of the one, Asian Americanist involved. Waste of time! I think the journal is in decline (still all about "post" theory and vaugeish, vogueish 'leftish'politics) .
South Atlantic Quarterly[edit | edit source]
- Doesn't appear to accept unsolicited submissions. All issues are guest-edited special issues, according to their website .
- Yes it is special issue only now. Michael Hardt is current editor after Grant Farred left and was hit with his scandal. I'd guess you can always try and contact him if you are doing a whole issue. It is a shame in some ways that so many of these jorunals are going this special-issue only route. But it is easier for the main/official editors and shrunken budgets. Just bad for indidivual faculty/submitters.
South Central Review[edit | edit source]
- This was a very positive experience. Fast turnaround and friendly, helpful editor.
- Submitted essay in late August. Received rejection and some brief notes in early January of the following year. Overall, a professional and pleasant experience (despite the rejection) .
Speculum[edit | edit source]
- My submission was rejected about one month after submission. The report was dismissive, and the comments suggested that the text I was analyzing "was well known" but that I was "attempting to make it seem more important than it was." Unfortunately, this specific text has not received much critical attention in nearly a century (an issue I discuss with supporting evidence in the article). On the upside, the turn-around and response was quick.
- I had to wait two years (!!) for a rejection. In late 2012, received a brief note from the editor saying they weren't publishing it 2 years after submission, and that he could forward the reports if I liked. I responded right away and asked him to forward the reports. One month later, I finally got the reports, which were quite detailed and even helpful but absurdly late.
- My submission was accepted 2 months after submission. The 2 readers reports were detailed and helpful. The new editor is quite efficient, and the copyeditor is excellent. They also have a fund that junior scholars and independent scholars can apply to for help with image and permissions costs.
- Received a very nice rejection saying my piece contained 'impressive scholarship' but essentially that it was too much detail about a text/topic they considered too minor for the journal.
- 2018: I received an R&R exactly 2 months after my initial submission; the editor offered no timeline on when revisions were due, but I returned the revised manuscript within 4 months and am still waiting on an answer.
- 2018-19: I received a response 6 months after submitting. Both reviews suggested rejection, which is a fair response, but one reviewer was unprofessionally harsh and made some personal, strangely worded comments about my writing technique.
Studies in Canadian Literature / Études en littérature canadienne[edit | edit source]
- Jan 2019: has anyone had a recent experience with them?
Studies in the Novel[edit | edit source]
- Submitted an article in 2020 and less than a month later got a desk reject, noting that "After careful consideration, the editor has decided that this article does not meet the journal’s current needs." The note added:"There are many reasons why an essay may not be selected for publication. Those reasons may include any of the following...." The list was sort of like, you could be too fat, or too thin, or too tall, or too short, or.... So I did not find the letter particularly helpful, but at the same time I am not complaining because this took less than a month instead of more than year with the same result (which has happened at other journals). Personally I think my article would have fit into the mix of the article, but since I don't really know what they are planning in the future, I won't second-guess them. Instead I will just submit it somewhere else, which is possible because the rejection was quick.
- Timely turn around in 2020 (about 2 months), but only 1 reader report, and a low quality review. Rejected. Reviewer nitpicked word choice and sentence structure without anything substantive to say about the actual argument. Reviewer then frames rejection to the editor as an issue that it is really two articles and needs more space to discuss implications. Where did that come from? Why not discuss it in the draft comments and point to where the problems are? I'm usually too hard on myself on these things, but this time I know it's not me--it's them. Will be submitting to a better journal with more serious, rigorous reviewers.
- A completely disgraceful submission and review process. They delayed repeatedly and were generally disorganized. Then out of the blue they give a rejection with no reason, pathetic. This journal really takes the spot for amateur hour. Don't waste your time with these so called academics aka clowns. The journal isn't very good either.
- Posting in November 2014: I also had a great experience with this journal. 3.5 months from submission to acceptance, with thorough and helpful reviewer reports. Working through the proofing and production process with managing editor Timothy Boswell was great; he's professional, courteous, and friendly. I've been a fan of the scholarship published in Studies in the Novel for a while now, and consider the journal a better venue than NOVEL at this point, in part because I trust the peer review process more at Studies.
- Excellent experience. Quick, clear, and professional communication throughout.
- Friendly and communicative throughout. Spent about a year from revise and resubmit request to final acceptance and publishing. Very detailed and helpful feedback (six single spaced pages from one reviewer!); the editorial staff were prompt and easy to get in touch with. I had a great experience.
- Great experience. Quick responses from the journal and very helpful readers' reports. I am pleased with the publication.
- Great experience: very detailed, thoughtful and thorough peer reviews, good correspondence with the editor, and quick turnaround of reviews. Quick timeline from acceptance to publication as well.
- Wonderful experience publishing here. Received an acceptance after 3 months or so (2 reports). Article was in print about a year later. Editor was extremely helpful.
- Extremely quick. Received R&R within 3 weeks of submission. Focus on cultural, historical research.
- 3 anonymous reviews within approx. 4 months; R&R then acceptance less than a month after resubmission (post-publication follow up 8/2012: although I was impressed by the quick turnaround and quick acceptance, I would definitely not work with this editor again; the editorial assistant was excellent and I had no direct contact with the editor; instead I was forced to conform to "directives" to make my language more politically correct, with no regard for what I was actually trying to say or indeed for the many ways of reading the terms I was using).
- Friendly, helpful editor and quick review process. Received R&R in April 2011 with helpful and to-the-point reports; resubmitted May 2011; accepted July 2011 and published in September. Well regarded journal and an efficient, professional experience on all fronts.
- Unlike the entries above, mine was an extremely hostile experience. The reviewer report was unhelpful and highly antagonistic. He/she simply refused to accept that my re-framing of a classic critical framework under a different light, and yet he/she offered no reasons whatsoever to back his/her position. The journal is very "old school." If your work is minimally critical of established critical trends, I recommend not to submit here.
- Very dismissive response from the editor who did not send my article out for peer review despite my field being completely different from hers. Her criticisms were completely uninformed. I submitted the article to a much better journal, who subjected it to peer review in my field, and it was quickly accepted and published
- Very quick, like literally one week for a rejection. Unhelpful, unkind, dismissive reader's report. Agree with previous poster that it seemed antagonistic to even very mild criticism of established trends. Article had much better reception elsewhere.
- The above is my experience, as well. The editor rejected my manuscript within one week with a completely uninformed and unprofessional set of comments that showed both a lack of knowledge in the field as well as evidence that she didn't read the essay past the introduction. Without revising it, I sent it to a better journal where it was accepted. This used to be a well respected journal, but this new editor has changed the tone entirely.
- I received the same -- very timely (one month) -- dismissive, slightly rude response. It seemed as if the editor didn't get much past the first couple of paragraphs. Perhaps a good lesson for me to come up with punchier openers, or at least to get to the point sooner.
- Same as the few above. After three weeks I received a dismissive, rude, bordering on offensive response. Sent the same article to a better journal -- was accepted in three months after a slight revision.
- I received a desk rejection with no feedback--rude or otherwise--after exactly two months.
- Received an R&R two months from initial submission (two constructive, if not intensively detailed, reader reports); acceptance one month after resubmission. I almost have survivor's guilt about how efficient this was. Golly. (Sept 2018)
Studies in Travel Writing[edit | edit source]
- Thinking of submitting something to this journal. Does anyone have any experience with it?
ST&TCL: Studies in 20th and 21st Century Literature[edit | edit source]
- New editor and format. Received a Revise and Resubmit with four very generous reviews. The revision was accepted. Submitted Aug 2014 -- will publish in March 2015 issue. Very positive experience.
- Took nine months to get back to me -- after two emails from me to check up on the status -- only to tell me that 3 readers wouldn't evaluate my paper, and the fourth just wasn't responding. So, after all that time, I got nothing. I withdrew the manuscript and am sending it elsewhere. The editor also said that the journal is going to be temporarily "put on hold" for restructuring, and that there'd be a new editor at the end of the year. So, hold off on sending them anything any time soon.
- (June 2014) ST&TCL has now been restructured, and has a new editor. The journal has moved to an online, open-access format, which should speed response times considerably.
SubStance[edit | edit source]
- after 6 months, received an email with a short report from the editors that said nice things about the article but didn't think it was suitable for the journal. appreciated the nice things being said, but wish they'd taken a lot less time to get back with this feedback when it clearly was not sent out for external review. (January 2018)
- 8 months waiting; one short report by someone who clearly didn't read the essay carefully.
- Submitted for a special issue; never got a response until I inquired 7 months later (rejection). Issue editor said s/he thought s/he had already written me, but hadn't. I should have asked sooner-- so that's on me-- but the editor could have been better organized and more communicative. (late 2013)
- Great experience in a special issue: useful feedback from the guest editors (obviously, that varies widely) and then useful feedback from an outside reviewer. About a year and a quarter from submission to publication.
symploke[edit | edit source]
- They sat on my essay for a year until I enquired about its status and they told me they didn't want it and that there were no readers' reports, from which I conclude that they didn't even send it out for review. I hate them.
- Got a rather odd and disjointed rejection, possibly due to idiosyncrasies of my article, but would certainly try there again.
- Best publishing experience so far (2012). The report came through very quickly and helped to transform the essay into a much better piece. Editor is extremely helpful and is an astute reader - an absolute pleasure to deal with. Would love to publish here again.
- May 2016: has anyone had a recent experience with this journal?
- Accepted my article for a special issue through peer review and then allowed guest editor to shelve it (for another year) in favor of his own people. My article is slightly idiosyncratic and I think this is the place for it, though.
- 2017: great experience with this journal. helpful reader reviews and timely correspondence.
- Your best bet is to befriend the editor if you want to get into this journal. One thing you will notice is that the same names pop up in issue after issue.
- 2020: Bizarre experience. I submitted an essay here and received no acknowledgement of receipt at first so I contacted them two weeks later to confirm receipt whereupon I received a form rejection and was told it had been sent out for review and rejected already. All in two weeks. An immediate editorial rejection is one thing but the claim that it had been peer reviewed and rejected in two weeks is astoundingly fast.
Telos[edit | edit source]
- The question here is ideological narrowness.
- what kind of narrowness do you have in mind? they seem to publish writers who represent both the right and the left. (caveat: I have an article forthcoming w/ this journal.)
- Guidelines state "All original essays for Telos will be refereed."--my essay was read by two editors, but there was no referee process if by that is meant that authors receive suggestions for revision. There was also no real editing; after my article was accepted (no revisions requested), I received the proofs 9 months later and that was the end of the process. I would have very much liked to have had the opportunity to go over some details with an editor/copyeditor before the galleys were produced. On the other hand, I do admire the journal, and am happy to publish here, just somewhat disappointed by the (non-existent) editing process.
Texas Studies in Literature and Language[edit | edit source]
- Took over 7 months to get a decision because the editor had trouble placing my essay with a reader, which ultimately amounted to a straight rejection. Reader report was unhelpful, did not engage with or critique my argument in any substantive fashion other than finding the logical progression of texts "unnecessary and unacceptable" (and apparently discussing Derrida and Barthes in relation to more contemporary theorists is a "throwback to the 1970s," and so what, therefore bad? irrelevant?), and instead the report offered advice that many today would consider to be old-fashioned (it's not taboo anymore to use a 1st-person pronoun in a scholarly essay, dear reader). Found reader report itself to be "unnecessary and unacceptable." Have a sneaking suspicion the essay wasn't read from top to bottom or that carefully.
- 4 months, 1 reader report. Reasonably positive comments with specific requests for revision, but straight rejection by editor. Article subsequently accepted by similar journal.
- Rejected within 3 months, but a good, clean, and fair process.
- Good, clean, quick process. It's a more traditional journal, so you should be aware of that when submitting. But it is professionally run.
- 4 months, two readers. Both recommended publish. The editor rejected it. Weird.
- 5 months, accepted for publication. Zero feedback. Also weird.
- Quick reader report. Very positive comments with minor suggestions for improvement, but article deemed 'not a good fit' by the editor. Also weird. Article subsequently published in another good journal.
- Received a quick acceptance from them (3 months or so) with a few suggestions for optional revision (most of which I took). Their copy-editor folks were good to work with, and were very responsive to accommodating a few typographical oddities required by some materials I was quoting.
- Great experience: 6 weeks, one very positive reader, accepted for publication without revisions.
- Great experience: R&R, with detailed comments provided by the reader; made some substantive revisions/additions and received a relatively quick acceptance. Copy-editing desk was fabulous to work with, but found the time of acceptance to publication (14 months) a bit long, but so it goes nowadays
- Three months for rejection with reader's report (Oct 2012 to Jan 2013). Brief, polite comments from the reader on possible avenues for revision (for other journals).
- 6 weeks for acceptance without revisions, with two positive reports.
- New editorial board has proven their worth. Six weeks to accept, with positive report. Editors supply a lot of comments to make the writing clearer on accepted work. Dedicated editing: they checked every citation of mine for issues. Publication eight months after acceptance. I'd gladly work with them again.
- Received an acceptance with minor revisions after three months of submission. Had a good experience communicating with the editors throughout—very responsive.
Textual Cultures[edit | edit source]
- Good place for work of a materialist, book-historical, and textual studies inclination. Always looking for submissions. Editor is extremely helpful and quick on email, and the process is relatively painless (in my recent experience, from submission to publication in six months, with outside reports and good revision suggestions).
- Submission in
Textual Practice[edit | edit source]
(restored from archives; not sure why it was deleted, but I don't see the journal listed anywhere else so am restoring it here.)
- Sent an article in early March 2020. Got reader reports back in early August asking for an R&R, which I sent in at the end of August. Apparently there were some COVID-related delays, but I finally got an acceptance at the start of January 2021. So including a round of revisions and a second peer review delayed due to the pandemic, it's almost exactly ten months from submission to acceptance.
- I published with TP this year and had a positive experience. Peer review took six months, so anyone in need of a quick decision may want to bear that in mind. The reviewer's report, which I received with warm comments from the editor Peter Boxall, was generous and helpful, and their suggestions made the article a better piece. I felt like they were a well-chosen reviewer for the topic (I received one report so assume there was one reviewer). I had a month for the minor revisions, then it was around five months from acceptance of revisions to publication, so, again, quite slow. The process from receiving the proofs to publication was very quick.
- I had a bad experience with TP in 2018, waiting for 6 months for a rejection. Rejection on the basis of one reader report which was very short (4 sentences), seemed hastily written and was full of grammatical errors, showed no understanding of the argument, was pettily obsessed with irrelevant detail and seemed hostile to theoretical arguments per se. No specific or detailed comments. I got the impression that the editor is well-meaning but undisciplined (repeated promises of responses 'next week' that amounted to nothing for months) and presumably better at finding readers for topics closer to his own expertise.
- I had a good experience with TP and would submit there again, although a long time did elapse between my essay's acceptance and its publication. I first submitted it in late November 2011; got an acceptance about 3 and a half months later (with one very positive and helpful reader's report, along with kind remarks in an email from the editor Peter Boxall--I assume there was no second reviewer because there was only one report); submitted my final version with minor revisions in July 2012 (revisions were not required for publication); got the proofs in November 2013 (that's right--more than a year later); the article was published online in January 2014; then it appeared in the print journal in July 2014. So I would say that it was accepted fairly quickly and efficiently, but then it took a surprisingly long time to come out. I will also say that I did have to read the proofs very carefully, as quite a few typos had been introduced into the essay in the editing process. The editors were excellent, however, in accepting all my changes and making the text appear exactly as I wanted it to appear. I also appreciated that Boxall was not particular about length requirements; I was initially worried that my essay exceeded the journal's stated length requirements but he does not enforce them. (My essay was just under 12,000 words.)
- Publishes a diverse range of critical theory articles - some of them very good - but not had any luck there myself. Two outright rejections - within 6 months and 9 months respectively - though puzzlingly with the kind of reviewer comments you normally expect to see accompanying a revise & resubmit or conditional acceptance decision, and on material I have had no trouble publishing (following rejection from TP) in journals of comparable standing. They don't give full copies of reader reports so maybe they only share the less derogatory comments. Either way, from my (possibly atypical) experience, it seems they don't have a lot of time to spend working with authors on revisions, so make sure your submission is print-ready if you try here.
- I published here at the time when the editorship last changed over. Got what I understood to be a rejection (with constructive readers' comments), but then got an email after the editor change asking why I hadn't come back with corrections. Time from initial submission to publication was maybe 14 months, but I only did minor corrections.
- Kind of a wild ride with this journal, resulting in acceptance. First submission took about 4 months to review, with a (major) R&R recommendation. Resubmission took about 5-6 months to review, with a (minor) R&R. Both reader reports were sarcastic, borderline catty (I've never seen anything quite like it), but the essay was an eccentric one, and their points were clarifying and well-taken. Final revision took about two months to accept. To get a third chance to submit the essay was a privilege I didn't expect. The editor himself was friendly, conscientious, and very quick to respond. Very positive experience overall.
- Also got a very friendly rejection after 3 months saying they thought the piece was interesting and well written but not a good fit for the journal because it was overly focused on a single text. No reader comments.
- I second the comments that this journal is slow - it took about 8 months to receive a rejection, despite several emails to ask about the status of the article. Only one reader report which was, at least, detailed.
Translation and Literature[edit | edit source]
- Quick turnaround (guaranteed within 1 month) but received poor/minimal feedback. Only one reviewer per article. This reviewer misquoted me and then criticized what he or she had misquoted. No suggestions for improvement, though the general editor (Gillespie) was very prompt and friendly. If you want good feedback or a quality journal publication, I would suggest elsewhere, unless you're working within a short time frame.
- I agree on the quick turnaround (I think it was roughly 6 or 8 weeks from submission to acceptance, and then my piece was published around six months after I'd finished making minor revisions). That said, I had a significantly more positive experience here in 2016 with some decidedly useful feedback. I'm quite certain that there was more than one reviewer on my article, as well.
Twentieth Century Literature[edit | edit source]
- 2017-18: Received an R&R about 3-4 months after submission. I took 3 months to revise, and then got an acceptance pretty quickly after resubmitting. The readers' reports were very helpful and engaged. The journal does seem to have a significant backlog, but the process from submission to acceptance was quick and valuable.
- Enquired with editor about my topic and length of paper, got quick and friendly response from Keith Dallas. When I submitted later through the portal it was rejected after less than a week as not fitting TCL's 'present needs'. But Keith was courteous.
- Hope the move to Duke helps them. I've sent two essays their way: it took nine months to get feedback and even though the readers reports sounded like R/R to me, they were rejected by the editor. Just painfully slow--if you're publishing to get tenure, I would avoid them.