Humanities Journals Wiki

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.

Back to Literary Studies Journals

CEA Forum[]

  • Review process well within time frame advertised on website. Very positive experience.

College Composition and Communication[]

College English[]

  • Be careful sending literary analysis papers to this journal. I sent an essay on Joyce's "The Dead" which was recommended by the readers but rejected by the general editor because he said it was his duty as editor to consider the interests of his readers, and he doubted that any of them had read the story (which in included in the Norton Anthology! This was in 2007, maybe things have changed.
  • Trying to straddle a general English Studies domain from within Rhet/Comp, the journal varies a lot depending on editor. I thought it was great under Schilb and then Ritter, but got a weird desk-reject from the current editor (Ianetta): she wrote nicely (beyond the boilerplate) about the piece I sent, but thought the topic wouldn't interest the journal's readership, so wasn't sending it out for review. Which, fair enough, but weird because the piece was entirely framed as a response to a piece that had appeared in CE only a couple months earlier.

Composition Forum[]

Composition Studies[]

  • My experience was good--timeline outlined exactly matched my experience. Feedback provided seemed nitpicky, but that's not the editor's fault.
  • I agree with the comment about the timeline. The turnaround was as expected.

Computers and Composition[]

  • Editoral staff is great to work with providing timely updates to manuscript process and feedback on manucript.


  • Editorial staff turn around manuscripts incredibly quickly, both from what I hear and in my own limited experience. My own experience was positive, even though it was a rejection: Associate Editor informed me (within a day or two, if memory serves) that the piece wasn't quite right for their audience but was supportive of my project and suggested other venues that might be a good fit. They're doing great work!
  • I published a book review with this journal and the process was excellent. Their rolling publication schedule means that, as soon as your work is ready, it's put up on the website; no waiting forever for the next print issue 


  • Timely review process, detailed reviewer feedback, supportive editorial staff, quick production. Received an R&R asking for pretty extensive (and needed!) changes, and was published after completeting those changes. I submitted for a special issue (#6) and received above-and-beyond help from the special issue editors.
  • Probably the most helpful revision feedback I have ever gotten on my writing.  I'm feeling really good about this venue.

JAC: A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture and Politics[]

  • It's been a year since an assistant editor informed me that my piece was being sent to reviewers. I haven't heard a word since.
  • This happened to me, too.  Does anyone know if there is something up with the journal?
  • Happening to me too. Submitted a book review essay July 2013, and have written several times to ask about its status. Was told in October 2013 that it was 'in the queue' and an email I sent April 2014 went unanswered. On the verge of withdrawing the review altogether. Have just sent another answer and will update if anything changes.
  • Happening to me as well. I submitted an article manuscript in August 2012, and in January 2013 the editorial assistant let me know that it had been reviewed, they'd received the readers' comments, and my submission was simply awaiting a decision from the editor. It's now August 2014, and there has still been no movement, despite a year and a half of emails (I received no reply from any emails, to the main office email address or to the editor's individual email address). Word is that the editorial office relocated from Idaho to New York this past year, which might explain some of the delay, but it seems that no one's been hearing back regarding new submissions in the past 1-2 years.
  • I sent a response essay in 2012 and never heard a peep. It's a shame, because this was once one of the finest journals in rhet-comp/writing studies. It has completely gone down the drain. I don't know if Worsham is still editing it, but it's time for a completely new leadership team. I advise all of my colleagues/grad students not to consider sending work there.
  • 2016, same problems persist. They've had an article for about a year, and nary a word despite a couple of inquiries. Comment above is right. I'm steering junior faculty away from it. Worsham must have too much on her plate to do justice to this journal. New leadership needed.
  • Run away! Multiple contacts, no response. What happened? This was flagship at one time.

Journal of the Teaching of Writing[]

Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy[]

  • It's been a couple years since my submission, but I had an excellent experience with Kairos. The peer review was very constructive and the turnaround time very quick compared to print journals. The month after publication, I was even invited to do a follow-up dialog online with another author who had an article in the same "coverweb" on disabilities rhetoric.

KB Journal-The Journal of the Kenneth Burke Society[]

  • Great experience. Review of MS was a little slow, but the piece was sent to 5 (!) external reviewers, who provided very helpful feedback and suggested ways to make an "accept with revisions" stronger.

Literacy in Composition Studies[]

Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture[]

  • Great experience. Received an R&R with extensive feedback from the reviewers, didn't get back to it myself for a couple years, then received acceptance a couple months later. Excellent suggestions from the editors on the accepted ms, too. The only unpleasantness was with the copy-editor (the journal is published through Duke UP), but I contacted the press directly, and they were very accommodating.
  • Any sense of how long it takes to receive a decision?
  • I heard back (R&R, thoughtful and consistent reviews) in three months almost to the day. After I revised, the editor sent the article out to an entirely new readers, who rejected it (this was in 2017)
  • Received a two-sentence rejection email with no feedback, no reader's responses. Rejection not a problem, but it would have been nice to know why.

Philosophy and Rhetoric[]

  • Rejected. Editor was pleasant but the single reviewer drawn from the editorial board struggled to rationalize the rejection (highlighting issues that could have been fixed within a day--hardly deal-breaking). Moreover, the reviewer had a condescending tone and a shrivled understanding of audience, which strikes me as particularly inept in rhetorical studies, we we all supposedly think about pathos. Article was warmly accepted elsewhere. A senior scholar told me he thinks the journal is in decline. It used to publish great stuff but seems to have lost its way lately.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal[]

  • Accept w/revisions; then accepted. Great experience with submission, revisions, and copyediting. The reviewers were helpful, and editors seemed to respect my decision not to reframe the article in a way one reviewer had recommended. They do have a specific timeline, so you have to be sure to submit in time for their review window or else you'll be waiting several months.

Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society[]

  • I got conflicting reviews in my "revise and resubmit" for this Present Tense, even the second time around (a second revise and resubmit). My contribution documented/profiled a new genre of rhetoric and did a little rhetorical analysis on samples of it. But the journal wanted *a contribution to theory*. I find it dubious that every contribution of 4000 words can make a viable contribution to rhetorical theory, and I question whether contributing to theory is the only or even the best type of contribution for a journal of rhetoric in society. That said, the peer reviews really spurred me on to revise my piece some more, and then submit the resulting, highly theoretical piece to another journal that published MUCH longer articles.
  • I submitted six months ago, and nothing yet. They keep telling me it will only be a little longer.

Quarterly Journal of Speech (QJS)[]

Rhetoric Review[]

  • Review was a bit slow, slower than promised. Even though MS was rejected, the reviewers provided lengthy and helpful feedback that will be useful for making MS better and possibly getting it placed elsewhere. Overall, a good experience. (Even rejections can be good experiences!)
  • My experience was positive. After the first round of reviews one set of comments was more helpful and productive than the other, but this is a normal occurance (that is, having one reviewer put more care into their feedback than another). I revised the piece and it was quickly accepted. The editor was helpful throughout the process.
  • Review was extremely slow. That said, feedback was helpful.
  • Some of the comments were pure vitriol, even hateful. Additionally, it was evident that many of the reviewers were not well versed in theory.
  • Just a response to the person above me: I've experienced in the last few years a(n annoyingly) hard shift among the more Comp-y people in the field away from hard theory; despite the journal title and a fair bit of rhetorical history, I think of RR as pretty Comp-y in general.
  • There seems to be a trend whereby journal editors don't synthesize comments of the readers or take control of the direction of the review, which was the case with RR recently. This was a turn off and I did not bother to resubmit as it felt like I had no chance and it would be a waste of time since the comments were mostly hateful and patronizing.
  • Current editor (Hurley) very responsive and helpful. The review was close to on time (maybe a week or two beyond two months). One review very helpful and the other somewhat helpful, if not really getting what I was going for.
  • Placed an article. First round two months, second round three months (but this could be due to the necessity of a third reviewer). Editor was extremely helpful and knowledgeable.

RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly[]

  • I published a book review here. I queried first. The whole experience was fun and rewarding.
  • As a reviewer I really appreciated the professionalism of the editors with the use of practical software, feedback about the results of readers' efforts and transparency overall.(

Teaching English in the Two-Year College[]

  • Great and prompt feedback, excellent readers. Editor willing to work with articles in process. Every interaction I've had with the journal has been positive.
  • A rejection after a majority of positive reviews. On the positive side, the reviews were received within 2-3 weeks, and the final decision within 3 months of submission.
  • Had a wonderful experience working with the new editor (2016). Prompt responses at every stage, truly helpful feedback that improved my article greatly.

WLN:A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship


Writing Center Journal[]

  • Clear, timely communication from editors and helpful reviews from readers. I got reviews (R&R) 5 months after submission, and they asked for pretty dramatic revisions but offered a year to resubmit.

Writing on the Edge[]

  • Very thoughtful feedback, but the process was slower than other peer journals (several months).

Written Communication[]

  • Our experience included around 8 months with no communication and very conflicting reviews. Ultimately a reject, it wasn't clear that one reviewer had actually read our ms., and the other reviewer, however, was interested in the ms.'s contribution and cultivation. The feedback between the two reviews was not tempered by editorial control, either. Confusing experience, overall.
  • Current editor works efficiently and gives incredible feedback
  • Intense editorial concentration on sound methods; have a meticulous methods section

WPA: Writing Program Administration[]