(Film Criticism)
(Film Quarterly)
Line 81: Line 81:
*At present, FQ is working with Ford Foundation and Just Films, and  recently received funding to pursue work to increase diversity in film criticism and to address issues of social justice in more contemporary fiction, documentary, and experimental media.
*At present, FQ is working with Ford Foundation and Just Films, and  recently received funding to pursue work to increase diversity in film criticism and to address issues of social justice in more contemporary fiction, documentary, and experimental media.
*Slacker reviewers (one of whom never turned in a report, another who promised to read revised version but then didn't) derailed the process. Most frustrating experience of my career (and I've published a lot!)
*Slacker reviewers (one of whom never turned in a report, another who promised to read revised version but then didn't) derailed the process. Most frustrating experience of my career (and I've published a lot!)
*The journal states an average of 6 months or more for the review process.

Revision as of 21:45, February 14, 2020

Please share your experiences working with these journals! Feel free to add other journals to the list. Try to stick with this format: each journal should be separated by dashes, and responses under each journal should each have their own bullet.

See also: Literary Studies Journals

Adaptation: The Journal of Literature On Screen Studies

  • Submitted paper on Oct 1, and had feedback by mid-November with a three-week turnaround for resubmitting minor revisions. The revised version was accepted for publication in late December, maybe two weeks after submitting the revisions. Journal issue appeared online the following spring. Amazingly fast, with concise but pointed and helpful criticism from reviewers.
  • Top-notch reviewers, fast turnaround. A little more than 2.5 months between original submission and final acceptance. The submission process is a bit wonky, but the speedy turnaround and thoughtfulness of reviews more than make up for whatever fleeting annoyances I felt when uploading materials.




  • Great initial response--was assigned a sub-editor right away, but I've currently been waiting a year without receiving reviews.

Black Camera

  • Anybody know anything about this journal? Thinking of submitting here. (2019)

Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies

  • Received an immediate confirmation of submission, with a timeframe for review indicated of three to five months. I received a rejection after four months, which, though disappointing, came with very helpful and specific readers' reports.
  • Submitted via email, confirmation received four days later. R&R approx. 4 months later. Very, very, very limited comments for revision. They do not sent reader reports; rather, they send a generalized letter from the editor that coallates the reader comments. There's no sense of how likely an acceptance is on future revisions or even how to interpret specific revision suggestions. Pretty frustrating, all in all.
  • Submitted via email. Almost immediate acknowledgement of receipt, with the caveat that reports couldn't be expected for 6 months, and they did take that long. R & R based on skeletonised comments (see previous post). Accepted. Painstaking editorial process. Worth it in the end.
  • Expect to wait at least six months to receive a decision.

Cinema Journal

  • Have to be a member of Society for Cinema and Media Studies to submit. Fast rejection but one with a recommendation for another journal, which did accept my article.
  • Received a supportive rejection from editor a month after submission. Felt scope was too narrow, but recommended alternative venue. 
  • Submitted here over a year ago. Article was rejected. It was politically and theoretically oriented, and I don't think they had the right reader for it (they gave me some truly bizarre comments for revision). Article was accepted at a better journal a couple of month later with minor revisions.  
  • I fully agree with the above comments. My readers seemed particularly ill-suited for my theoretically-oriented essay, gave some bizarre comments for revision, but my article was also accepted at an equivalent or better venue soon after.  
  • Good experience. Timely turn-around and great (incl. critical) feedback.  


  • I had a poor experience with this journal. Reviews took quite a while to come back, and the feedback contained typos and contradictory requests. I was told to complete minor revisions, and was given 2 weeks to resubmit. I requested extra time, as the reviews came back during a particularly heavy teaching period, but received no response. I did what I could in the 2 weeks, and waited ages only to be told that they had actually wanted major corrections - despite saying minor in the initial email - and that my article was rejected. On reflection, the paper was probably not a good fit for the journal anyway, and a more hands-on editorial team should have been able to save all of us from wasting our time.
  • Poor communication. Poor choice of reviewer. Poor feedback. Avoid.


  • Disorganized and unprofessional.
  • could anyone comment on turn around time? thanks in advance
  • Wonderful experience with this journal. The initial review took 6 months. I received detailed and helpful comments. My revised article was accepted within a month after I submitted it, but took 3 months or so to finally appear in print.
  • Article sat in limbo for upwards of nine months. No confirmation it had been received or was under review. Thankfully, the online system made it easy enough to quietly withdraw article with one mere click of a button. 2015

Film Criticism

  • Anyone have experience submitting to this journal?
  • Great experience. Response right after submission. Indication of reasonable timeline. Helpful reader reports within just a few months of submission with a request to revise and resubmit in a reasonable amount of time (one month or so). So all in all: highly recommended. And they recently sent out a call for submissions. So I think they are looking for good potential essays.
  • Very quick with reader reports (within one month!). It was rejected, but the reviews helped shape the article further.

Film & History

  • Bloody awful. Was told I'd receive a response in six months. Had to query after ten months passed in order to receive a delay notice. Had to query AGAIN after an entire year only to be told I had been rejected. I guess they never planned on telling me.
  • The most arrogant and unprofessional editor. A month after submitting an article, I was told my article will be sent to reviewers and I would hear back within six months. After ten months, I decided to ask for an update. I received a short and poorly worded email saying the article had been rejected. When I asked for comments, the editor decided not to reply. I knew the article was never sent anywhere. I contacted the editor once more, pointing out that as per their website I was entitled to get a report. A week passed, during which the editor apparently read the article and wrote a two-sentence report. Not only was the "report" riddled with punctuation mistakes, it was also mean-spirited--perhaps because I ensured he actually read the article. Unless you have a year to waste, send your work elsewhere.
  • Sadly, I disregarded the two postings above. And I submitted an article to this journal. After six months, I inquired into the status (b/c above poster sd. w/in six months). I asked for an update. Was told the article had been sent out for review. After three more months, I inquired again. Was told the response was negative. No reader reports. How are we to benefit from insight and learn? So I asked for them. And then, I received a condensed version of about 10 sentences (one report) of unhelpful and not constructive comments. (At another journal, I received 4, 5 or 6 reviewers' comments this summer - on one article. And while they were not all positive, they were all very helpful, offering constructive criticism.) It is an art. So sadly, I agree with the above poster, unless you have a year to waste without even receiving helpful readers' reports, I would suggest send your work elsewhere.

Film History: An International Journal

  • Three month turnaround; extremely detailed and supportive comments on a rejection.
  • Excellent turn-around time and good feedback. Very professional.
  • Film History has always had terrific scholarship, but since Greg Waller has taken over, it has become a joy to work with them. The managing editors are very on top of their game, and the reviews are helpful and clear. Highly recommend.
  • Has something changed with Film History? No response five months after initial submission.
  • Not a good experience for me: Revise-Revise-Revise-Reject round which took more than two years in the making.
  • No response after 10 months of intial submission. Something has clearly changed with the editorial team of this journal.
  • Disorganized, unprofessional, and a just ridiculously bad experience all around. Withdrew after a year, was told multiple times that I'd have an update within a week of enquiry, only to encounter several more months of silence. What an utter waste of time. Stay away.
  • Waller's feedback to a junior scholar on a desk reject was borderline inexcusable.


  • The journal is open access which is an enormous plus, but comes at the cost of an extremely slow process. Article was accepted based on two positive reviews which were fair and required minor changes. The changes improved the overall quality of the article and the experience with the editor was also a good one. I had emailed the editor during the review process to keep me abreast of the development and he did. However, it has to be said that the process from submission to publication was one month short of two years. So I would recommend to submit if you are not in a rush and if your (early) career does not depend on it. Apart from the speed, I would definitely recommend the journal.
  • Rejection within a month, no feedback given.

Film Quarterly

  • Excellent (five week) turnaround from submission to response. Good feedback: detailed and helpful comments. Very professional. Highly recommend.
  • At present, FQ is working with Ford Foundation and Just Films, and  recently received funding to pursue work to increase diversity in film criticism and to address issues of social justice in more contemporary fiction, documentary, and experimental media.
  • Slacker reviewers (one of whom never turned in a report, another who promised to read revised version but then didn't) derailed the process. Most frustrating experience of my career (and I've published a lot!)
  • The journal states an average of 6 months or more for the review process.


  • The editor will give you a good idea beforehand whether the article is a fit for the journal. On the other hand, one of my articles was returned with little or no feedback.
  • They seem to take a while to get back to you once initial submission has occurred, but thereafter it's speedy. In my experience: a year or so for submission / corrections, and published shortly after. Props to them though as they're fearless in terms of the stuff they publish. Outstanding journal.
  • Initial peer review took a little over 5 months. Upon re-submission with corrections it was accepted around 7 weeks later. Published around 7 months after acceptance. The peer review was very helpful, detailed, and really engaged with the article. Overall a highly positive experience.

Game Studies

  • Review process took about 12 months. Review comments were helpful for revision, but editorial timeline was very poorly communicated, which made the publication process needlessly stressful. Editorial processes may have improved more recently.

Grey Room

Does anyone have any experience with this journal? I sent an article in over a week ago and have yet to receive an acknowledgement. I'm wondering if Grey Room has long response times. Thanks

  • I waited a week or possibly a bit more for an acknowledgement that the article was sent out for review, and then 6 months for a revise & resubmit. Currently waiting to hear on revisions. I wouldn't worry too much based on my experience, and would recommend patience (I know it's hard). Good luck!
  • Awful experience with this journal. Took almost a year, and couldn't get anyone to respond to multiple inquiries. Withdrew article at 9 month mark.
    • Had the EXACT same experience. Withdrew article after 9-10 months of utter incompetence. Happy to have published it elsewhere.
  • (second poster here) I agree. Turns out that my R&R resulted in a rejection -- but only once I inquired after the third or fourth month -- with a note that, given the amount of submissions, they couldn't provide any comments. Frustrating to say the least.
  • Ditto to all of the above.  This was the most unprofessional experience I've had yet in academic publishing.  They held my piece for 10 months.  I sent them monthly e-mails during the last four months and never got any response (except to my first e-mail, when they said they'd have more information for me within the month).  Then, one day, I got a simple "no" without any comments or reader reports.  Grey Room was recommended to me as an exciting and polished journal, but my sources now tell me they must have been wrong: the new editors have changed all that.  So long to the reputation this journal once had ...
  • Submitted an article and didn't receive even a confirmation that it had been received. When I inquired a month later, I got an email back saying it had already been rejected. Even worse that the poor communication was the fact that although it was "carefully reviewed by several readers" no feedback could be provided because of a lack of resources and support. I'm assuming the readers gave feedback to someone. How much more effort does it take to cut and paste their comments into a document to send to the author? Completely unprofessional and a waste of time.
  • Members of the editorial board don't communicate with each other or seem to agree on an editorial policy. Much of what is listed above also happened to me.
  • I feel like it behooves me to defend GR here. I received confirmation of my submission within a month or so of submitting, which made sense given that the manuscript was first sent by me shortly before Christmas. Then after another three months I received an R&R request with extensive feedback and suggestions regarding what the editors would like to see. They even included a bibliography of readings to help me reframe my material. This cost me much time, true, and it would be another two months until I sent the MS back for review. Then two months on their end to deal with the new manuscript, which had admittedly grown to elephantine proportions; hence another R&R to reduce length and tighten argument. After submitting the article for a third time it was unconditionally accepted with a few minor requests and suggestions for the intro and conclusion; comments were always on point and helpful, indicating that much care had been taken at every round of review. Publisher's copy-editing was also quite rigorous. Article will be just over a year from initial submission to publication. And, I do not feel as if I had to be patient with this journal; I am grateful, rather, that they have been so patient with me. My article was not only accepted, but considerably bettered by our correspondence. It is coming out in a form of which I can be proud. They made due allowances for length because they believed in the material. Prior to submitting I had never met or talked to any of the current editors; nor do I have a reputation that precedes me; nor am I a genius, by any means. So what I would say is this: Send GR something interesting; send them your best material--you never know what may happen. They do in fact publish junior scholars, and do so consistently; moreover they give to junior work the finish of something senior. (2016)
  • Best copyediting I have ever received in over a decade of academic publishing (including a book with a major press and numerous articles in several journals.) I feel fortunate to have had the chance to publish with them. Exceptional care given to details. I wish I could hire their editor to edit my next book. (2018)

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television

  • Submitted to this journal and received an encouraging rejection email within a few days, saying that it was just out of the scope of the journal. It really felt as though they gave it some proper thought before coming to the decision, and the swiftness of the reply meant that I could move on to other options very quickly. A class act, and one I wish would be duplicated elsewhere. I came out of the experience happier with the journal - despite the rejection - than with some that have actually chosen to publish my work!
  • Very good experience. Article accepted a month after I sent it (with good readers' reports and some minor changes), then published about 5 months later.

Journal of Film and Video

  • Tremendous backlog.  My piece has been ready to go -- copyedits and all -- for over two years.  Unresponsive editor.

Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds

  • Good experience. Submitted 11/14. Was told I'd hear 4/15, but didn't, so sent an inquiry in late 5/15. Got a response a few days later saying one reviewer never responded, and they'd find an alternative. Heard two days later that I was accepted with minor revisions for publication 9/15.
  • Very quick turnaround. Article went from submitted to published in about 6 months. Peer review comments were helpful as was editorial guidance, although I have reason to believe this varies a bit depending on which editor your piece is assigned to. Overall, very straightforward process.

Journal of Popular Film and Television

  • Efficient and thoughtful. Received a desk rejection within two weeks (beyond scope of journal) with a helpful suggestion about another journal, where the paper was accepted. Recommended.

Journal of Popular Television

  • submitted in early 03/2016; received reviews (minor revisions) end of 06/2016; submitted revised article late 09/2016; accepted mid-12/2016; publication may take until 2019, however

Journal of Scandinavian Cinema

  • Great - really friendly editors who engage with you straight away on submission. 3-4 months for reviews, which were constructive and helpful, editor-in-chief also added in some suggestions. Requested revisions undertaken and predicted publication time suggested at this point. Recommended.

Literature/Film Quarterly

  • Very positive experience here. Quick turnaround (2 months) for initial response with requested revisions. Readers' comments were insightful and specific. Clear and timely communication from editorial staff.

New Review of Film and Television Studies

  • I'm very interested in this journal. Could anyone submitted to this journal please share the experience?
  • Confirmation of submission and then a first response within 4 months. My article was rejected by just 1 reviewer who seemed more concerned about disagreeing with me than engaging with my ideas. Detailed comments but not very constructive and all focused on a few pages; nature of comments seemed to suggest minor corrections or at least a second reviewer but was rejected outright. Disappointing.


Quarterly Review of Film and Video

  • I'd agree with the assessment just written below. The new editor tries to keep new submitters informed.
  • I didn't have any of the below problems with long waiting, but there is now a new editor, so that may be why. I submitted 8/14. Inquired about the status 2/15. Editor is really nice, apologized a week later for the wait. Heard two days later I was accepted for publication 7/15.
  • Received the same notification re: 3 year waiting period less than 2 hours after submission.
  • Received notification that there is currently a 3 year waiting period for new material, and that they are completely "full up at the moment" within 36 hours of submitting a manuscript.
  • Two years ago, received a rejection within 20 minutes of submitting an article. A friend received an acceptance within a similar timeframe. I believe "peer review" is used very loosely here, and that it is the editor deciding on inclusion based on article topic (not argument).
  • Desk rejections are not uncommon.
  • Submitted article 7/15 or so. 9/15 told to submit on-line. Inquired into status 12/15. Was told about backlog, which I had already seen mentioned above. Then, to my delight: accepted for publication not too long after.


  • Great experience! Whether they accept your article or not, their feedback is detailed and helpful.
  • Agreed-- efficient and smooth, a model for the peer review process. About 3.5 months to a revise & resubmit, then an acceptance about 3 weeks after resubmission. Reviews were smart, even-keeled, and very helpful. Clearly a terrific editorial board and administration.
  • Very professional. Good feedback and quick turn-around.
  •  Echoing the above comments: efficient and smooth. Indeed, a model for the peer review process. Comments were smart and helpful. Response w/in 24 hours of submission to confirm submission (automatically generated through web-site upload). Readers' reports (3!) 5 weeks after submission.
  •  Great experience, although the article was not accepted for publication. Readers' reports within 9 weeks.
  •  As above: quick, polite, professional.
  •  Six months from submission to revise and resubmit. Very helpful readers' reports.
  •  Slow as expected but a terrific experience: 9 months for very detailed, polite, and productive comments (4 readers) and then 2 more months from re-submission to acceptance. `15 months from acceptance to publication.

Screen Bodies

  • A journal at the intersection of Screen Studies and Body Studies.

Screening the Past

  • Still waiting for reviews after more than an year. Endless deferrals. Frustrating experience.

Senses of Cinema

  • Does not accept unsolicited article submissions. Predominantly commission-based. Thus, must propose idea (200 words) for an article first.
  • Not a fully refereed journal. Thus, articles are not necessarily peer-reviewed. If peer review is requested, indicate with initial idea proposal.
  • A model of professionalism: this is how academic journals can/ought to be run. It took less than one year from initial proposal to published double peer-reviewed essay.

Studies in French Cinema

  • Also posted at French and Francophone Studies Journals
  • It took 7 months to get any response but the feedback received was excellent with 3 full reports from the peer reviewers with suggestions for improvement and for what would need to be changed for acceptance.

Studies in Hispanic Cinema

Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema

  • Excellent experience! Article accepted within a month of submission, with good readers' report. Working with the editor was a pleasure.

Television and New Media

The Moving Image

Third Text

Transnational Screens (Formerly Transnational Cinemas)

  • Submitted manuscript late June 2019, received confirmation of receipt five days later. Received Revise and Resubmit nine days after confirmation email. Revise and Resubmit came with detailed, clear, and generous feedback in addition to suggestions on how to address the revisions from the reviewer(s). Very friendly experience and easily the most timely experience submitting to a journal. Editors are prompt, answering all questions I had about the process. Definitely would encourage others to submit here!

Velvet Light Trap

  • Experience circa 2015-16. They publish themed issues only but well-worth submitting if your work fits the CFP. Received R&R within about 3 months of submission; comments were detailed and helpful, and really helped to improve the work. Resubmission window quite tight (6 weeks) but once resubmitted received acceptance within 1 month. Published 7 months later. All-round good experience with high quality feedback and fast turnaround. However, editorial board changes with each issue which may result in inconsistency of experiences.
  • Run by graduate student collective with a top-notch editorial board. All issues themed, so your article will be in print about a year after the deadline. Good communication, good feedback.

Wide Screen

  • Does anyone have experience with this journal?
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.