Fandom

Humanities Journals Wiki

English Literature Journals

25pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Comments20 Share

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.

A reminder: when posting your experiences, please post the dates of your entries so we know how up to date the information is and how recent the experiences have been.

  • I moved Eighteenth-Century Fiction, Exemplaria, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, MFS, Modernism/Modernity, New Literary History, Novel: A Forum on Fiction, PMLA, Renaissance Quarterly, Representations and Speculum to the Comparative Literature/Theory page, since they do not focus exclusively on English literature.

Subscribe to RSS Feed for this page: http://humanitiesjournals.wikia.com/wiki/English_Literature_Journals?feed=rss&action=history

Back to Literary Studies Journals


ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and ReviewsEdit

  • This journal has a very fast turnaround time. Highly recommend.
  • A three-month turnaround to acceptance. Nice people.
  • Things seem to have changed since the time of the previous post. I submitted using the online system and have not heard a peep from the editor, who does not respond to my inquiries. Yes, you can track the progress of submitted articles online, but all I can see is that it has been "under review" for over five months. UPDATE: now over six months, and the editor still does not respond. Not unheard of, but unacceptable nonetheless. I am eager to learn whether my current experience with this journal is typical, or if someone else has recently had a better one. UPDATE: nine months and no word.     
  • I've had a similar experience and withdrew my article after eight months. This kind of editorial behavior unfortunately encourages multiple submissions.     
  • I just submitted an article here. I'm worried if the journal is really dysfunctional. Could anyone share their recent experiences with this journal     
  • As a reply to the last query, based on experience in 2013 and 2014 (yes, it took more than a year from first submission to eventual publication): the journal is functional, but things go extremely slow, and the editor is very reluctant to reply to any of your inquiries. On the other hand, my reviewer was completely fair, and his/her advice was useful.     
  • The system says that my work is "under review." It's already six months. I've got no reply as well. Anyone has a different experience?     
  • "Under Review" for eight months. Sent inquiries, but no word. Weird...

AngliaEdit

  • Excellent experience - very clear guidance from acceptance to publication, thorough feedback but also quick turnaround, highly recommended

Anglo-Saxon EnglandEdit

  • Can't tell if this journal even has peer-review beyond the editors' own short comments. Seems not to be the most professional of outfits.
  • this is the single most prestigious journal in Anglo-Saxon Studies.
  • A prestigious venue, but be aware that editors' and reviewers' response times can be unusually long--if your time is short for reasons having to do with the job market or with tenure, consider submitting elsewhere.
  • Hmm. Great journal, but the previous comment betrays a problem: from hiring patterns, MLA suborganization, etc.., it's far from clear that there is something called "Anglo-Saxon Studies" (Old English studies?) anymore. I'm all for interdisciplinarity, but I work in an English department and find myself skipping most of the articles in ASE that have their home in history, archaeology, etc. I wonder if others feel the same.

It seems that many of the comments, especially negative ones, result from folk not researching the venue. Anglo-Saxon England is the flag ship journal in the field and yes there is a field of Anglo-Saxon studies. Because of the way the American academy is set up, most though not all American Anglo-Saxonists are in English departments. The MLA which of course deals with languages and literature has an Old English division because Old English is a convenient label to cover both language and the literature written in that language. Anglo-Saxon studies is interdisciplinary just as most Anglo-Saxonists are interdisciplinary in approach--I myself regularly use literary approaches, historical, linguistic, art,and/or archaeological. Unlike say a comparative lit journal or something of that sort, this journal needs to be discussed in multiple categories because it deals with any and all scholarly approaches to the period.

It is an annual. It is European. Those in English studies should be aware that these two facts mean that there is a significant difference between American practices and European: if on the job market or on the tenure clock plan accordingly.

Regarding peer review, the editors, top people in the field, are the primary gate keepers, not unusual in European journals. Each deals with submissions in their specialty. They publish submissions from around the world and from graduate students to senior scholars.

To say that this isn't a professional outfit is to display a high degree of unprofessionalism. The statement illustrates an ignorance of the field, different practices in other countries, and so on. Do your research people....that's the only way this site is useful is if the information is accurate.

APPOSITIONS: Studies in Renaissance / Early Modern Literature & CultureEdit


Ben Jonson Journal Edit

  • Article submitted on June 19. Accepted with suggested revisions on June 27. Resubmitted with revisions on July 10. Received copyedited text on July 27. Everything was extremely fast, kind and professional. Paper will be published in the November issue. Proof received mid-August. Highly recommended journal.
  • Agreed with above. This was the first journal I published in, back in 2005. They were excellent. Very efficient readers, comprehensive reports, and generous copy-editing. Highly recommended.
  • Also agreeing with above. Quick and efficient editing. Reports were brief but to the point.
  • Are you sure it is the same Journal? I mean it is not that fast. I submitted and I am still waiting. I did not even received an acknowledgment of reception. I think it takes a longer time. I still believe it is professional because it may be the editor who suggested the initial revisions editors take less time to suggest revisions that will make it easier for good articles to pass through the readers.

Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and AppropriationEdit

  • Painfully slow.

Byron JournalEdit


Cahiers ÉlisabéthainsEdit

  • As a play review contributor, the process was easy and well-managed. 
  • I submitted an article and received an acceptance very quickly. The reviewer's requests for revision were very reasonable and helpful, and the senior editor is very communicative and friendly.

Chaucer ReviewEdit

  • I had a great experience with this journal--my first article as a grad student. Quick turnaround, with detailed readers reports for a revise and resubmit. The editor included comments and suggestions for addressing the reviewer's suggestions. Quick acceptance on resubmission and a wonderful editorial staff who were very helpful in the final stages of the proofing process. All in all, professional but welcoming.
  • Quick turnaround (less than 4 months)--a revise and resubmit. Revised according to editors' and readers' suggestions, returned essay less than 4 months later, was rejected. Revise and resubmits are apparently sent to a third reader who hasn't seen the earlier essay or the previous readers' comments, so be careful about how you revise.
  • I had a similar experience: the first two reviews were quite encouraging but the third reviewer was fairly harsh and recommended unequivocal rejection [2016].
  • Submission in 2010 was rejected rather harshly. Not recommended for the novice Chaucerian as they have high standards, and will be sure to let you know it.
  • Submission was acknowledged the day they received the manuscript (per the postal tracking data). Editors' and reader's reports (acceptance with minor revisions) arrived ten weeks later. The editors clearly explained which of the reader's suggestions to follow. Revised work was accepted in under a month, so the total time from submission to final acceptance (bearing in mind my revision time) was almost exactly four months. Editors have been extremely professional and helpful. They have provided useful information on copy-editing, volume and issue number, and the rest of the process. If everything goes according to plan, total time from submission to publication will be eighteen months.   
  • Timely review, ultimately rejected without invitation to resubmit, but the readers' reports were helpful and thoughtful.  Overall very positive experience despite outcome--more journals should follow suit in this way.  No reason to reject without helpful comments.
  • Great experience. Submitted in August 2015 and received readers' reports within three months, along with exceptionally helpful comments from the editors on how best to prepare the article for resubmission. Professional and efficient copyediting. From initial submission to publication was a little over a year.

The ConradianEdit


ConradianaEdit


Early Modern Literary StudiesEdit

  • Probably 3 months from submission to decision, and good, decently detailed and helpful reports.
  • Did you get a confirmation of your submission when you sent it in originally?
  • 2013: I have had a submission with them for almost a year and have not heard anything, not even a confirmation.
  • 2013: I also didn't hear anything for 15 months (I submitted in 2012), and when I heard back, they asked me to re-submit entirely
  • I submitted something a couple years ago. I got very fast and generally positive reports (a couple of weeks, as I recall). So I made some minor changes, sent the ms back promptly with a few questions for the editors, and...heard nothing at all. I was never even really clear if the piece had been accepted or not. I made a few email inquiries as the months wore on and was mostly ignored (as in, I didn't get any response at all). Then my piece was suddenly published about a year after submission. My general impression is that things were quite disorganized there at the time. I think there may be new editors now, so perhaps things are running more smoothly.
  • I also submitted and never heard back, so I resubmitted with explanation and never heard back--not even an acknowledgement of submission.  I submitted somewhere else after two years.
  • This was one of the first journals I submitted to (back in 2005). Really quick response (2 months) with comprehensive and helpful readers' reports. I revised and resubmitted; the piece was published shortly after. They've recently switched over to a new journal system (Open Journal Systems) which may explain some of the teething problems outlined above.
  • Three months from submission to R&R; three more months from submission of revisions to acceptance. Useful readers' reports, although one had a particularly off-putting tone.
  • [July 2016] Does anyone know anything about where this journal currently stands? I've had a "forthcoming" review there since October 2014. Their last published regular issue was 2012, and their last special issue was 2013. In June 2015 (a year ago), I asked after my review and was told that it's still a go, but another year has gone by and no publication of anything by them. On the plus side, the submission/revision experience was fine.

Early Modern Studies Journal (was Early English Studies)Edit

  • Fast turnaround but my article was copyedited by a grad student who was completely cluless as to both editing standards and the field of study. I finally had to request a faculty editor.
  • Was accepted for the 2012 issue, but they've been having "website problems." It's been six months since the publication was scheduled to appear.

Early TheatreEdit

  • Very efficient editorial team and generous copy-editing. Great journal to publish with.
  • Around a 3-month peer-review time.

English (Oxford journal)Edit


ELH: English Literary HistoryEdit

  • Produced an article that engages directly with an aspect of lit. history (in relation to three authors) and sent it to one of the leading lights in the field for preliminary feedback. Received an exceptionally positive assessment of the essay. Submitted the piece to ELH and received a rejection message after fives weeks - no reason, no feedback. Frankly, regardless of what they state on their website, I find it poor professional practice not to offer two or three sentences on the reasons for rejection.
  • Submitted an article in May 2011 and received a rejection in December 2011. The editor shared only the reader's suggestion that the article would be appropriate for a more specialized journal.
  • Submitted an article in June 2011 and received email notice of acceptance in September 2011 (on a weekend!). Article was accepted as submitted, no revisions were requested (although I do understand from others that it is common for ELH to request some revisions before final acceptance). No reader reports were provided, but it is my understanding that ELH does not usually provide reader comments (part of the reason why they have a quick turn-around time). Was told to expect 12-18 months between submission of final article manuscript and publication.
  • Update: There was a longer delay than originally promised, and the essay is now set appear in a 2013 issue (luckily I was not in a position to need the article in print quickly). Although I was not orginally asked for revisions, the text was fairly heavily copy-edited when it was returned to me for review (most suggested edits were sensible and welcome). I understand that this journal has recently changed editors and I believe that has been affecting the process somewhat, but the new editor now seems to be well on the way to having things back on track.
  • Received rejection about three months after submission, with brief (one sentence) but helpful statement about reasons for rejection.
  • Rejection three months from submission; as in the cases of the posters above, the response came on a weekend, and with the suggestion that I send it to a more specialized journal.
  • Rejection three months from submission. No reasons, no readers' reports.
  • Rejection after 3 months from an associate editors. Same as above: no reasons, no readers' reports.
  • Rejection after 4 months from senior editor, with an attached reviewer's paragraph explaining rejection.
  • Submitted an article in September 2012 and received very encouraging "minor revision" requests in November. Got the piece back by December and received much more involved "major revision" requests in January. Got the piece back to them by February and received an acceptance in early April 2013, with a long list of final "highly suggested" changes to the piece. So, ELH clearly does engage in very meticulous and involved cycles of revision from time to time, though I believe my experience (in particular, a "major" revision that followed a "minor" revision) was somewhat unique. Still, if you can get your foot in the door with a minor/major revision request, they may be one of the best journals for improving a piece quickly and efficiently, because the comments are quite detailed, and they turn drafts around like lightning. Another reason they are good for this is that you work only with one reader across all revisions; your revisions always go back to the same person. This removes the annoyance of having a wild-card second (or third) reader involved in later stages of revision. Responses always came on Saturdays.
  • Submitted article in early July 2011. Acceptance 8 weeks later via email (on Saturday!), with no reader's reports. Email noted there had been only one reader. Was told they typically take 18 months or less to get articles published, but because of a growing backlog and change in editor, it's now about 2 years. 
  • Rejection almost exactly three months after submission with suggestion that I send it to a more specialized journal.
  • Rejection three months after submission, no comments, no readers' reports, no response to email inquiry about any possible feedback.
  • Rejection from senior editor one month after submission. No reasons or readers' reports.
  • Rejection several months after submitting, with only an irritating comment, presumably passed on from the reader (also on the board), to read her (!) work on the subject.
  • Rejection six weeks after submission. As above, no reasons or readers' reports.
  • Submitted essay late July 2013; acceptance received early Feb 2013 with brief, positive reader report and no requests for revision. After hearing nothing for nearly six months, I emailed the editorial assistant to ask about status. A week or so later, he apologized for the delay, said he'd email the reader, and invited me to be in touch if I hadn't heard in two weeks. I hadn't and so emailed again; got another apology and a promise to try to turn things around quickly. This was followed within days by the acceptance, with gracious apologies from both senior editor and reader for the long delay. (If I had it to do over, I'd have asked for an update a bit sooner, say after 4 months.) No word yet on when essay might appear, but I tried to signal tactfully that I'd appreciate being bumped up at least a bit in the queue given the very long time it took to hear back. Essay went to a member of the editorial board, who revealed his/her identity in a personal email to me that further apologized for the delay (which I appreciated!); whether this email was possible because my identity was never concealed or because the reader recognized my work from conferences, etc., I don't know.
  • For what it is worth, the journal states plainly on its website that it does not routinely provide readers' reports.
  • Submitted an article on an obscure text. A week later, had very kind email explaining that the topic was not well-known enough for them. I appreciated the quick and professional rejection.
  • Rejection a month or so after submission. I get that they don't do reader reports, and am grateful for the quick turnaround to rejection. But the do the Scholar One "awaiting reviewer assignment, reviewer scores, etc" cycle thing. Even if it's editors that are doing the reading at the early stage, you'd think they could provide some summary report (whether of external referee's or editor's pov) of at least a couple of sentences. It seems somehow strange and unhelpful to the profession that a journal should have a paper for any length of time and put it through some process that's registered on the MS 1 submission website then offer nothing at all (not even a sentence) in the way of feedback. They say ahead of time that they don't give reader reports, which is fine. But that should not be an excuse for the editors' giving no summary or feedback whatsoever.
  • Rejected after six months. I had to make an inquiry after hearing nothing. I did receive reviewer comments saying that my article was not the right critical style for ELH. I wish there could have been more than one reviewer, but I was happy to receive feedback -- wish it could have come sooner!
  • Submission to acceptance in 3 months. Appeared in print a year later. Editors were easy to work with. Process is very relaxed.
  • Very positive experience: from submission to acceptance in about eight weeks. Received thorough reader's report, and would absolutely submit there again.
  • Finally had an essay accepted after four back-and-forths with the reader. Ultimately, I'm very glad my essay received that level of editorial attention.
  • Rejected after five months with a brief but strangely positive reviewer comment that highlighted what was innovative and important about the essay, but that ultimately stated s/he could "not recommend for publication in ELH" because my argument was too specific to a given time period and wedded to that period's particular terms. The reader recommended sending the essay to a period-specific journal. I was grateful for the positive feedback--and that I received feedback at all--but was perplexed as to the reasons provided for rejection, esp. after reviewing some of the recently accepted and published articles that made similar choices. That said, my article was snatched up by a flagship journal in my specific field only months later when I resubmitted it, and received two glowing reader reports, so the ELH reader wasn't wrong. The experience was encouraging enough for me to try again with an article that speaks a bit more broadly to both my period and literary studies.

ELN: English Language NotesEdit

  • Quite fast and very professional. Clear,feedback from two readers. I did not agree with one of the readers but the editor mediated it fairly.
  • Journal based at UC Boulder and arranged around special topics.

ELR: English Literary RenaissanceEdit

  • Submitted an article in 2008 or so, got a positive rejection letter with 2 good readers' reports w/in 6 mos. Then in 2010, emailed the editor to see if they would be willing to read a new version of the essay. They said yes, so I sent it in sometime over the 2010-2011 Winter break.. Received word in April or May 2011 that they liked my essay but had not been able to decide if they wished to include it, and that they would be in touch in the fall. Sept. 2011 they email me to say that they have accepted the article for publication in the 2013 volume, and included 2 reader's reports with suggestions for revision.
  • Submitted an article in Oct. 2011, and received a prompt confirmation letter that they had received it. Now it's practically August 2012 and I've heard nothing from the journal. Sent the editor an e-mail over a month ago politely requesting a status update and updating my contact info because I've changed institutions. I did not receive a reply to this e-mail, and am now unsure what to do. Send another e-mail? A colleague suggested that I call the journal, but I'm hesitant to do this.
  • To the above: I've been given to understand that e-mail is defnitely not the best way to contact the editor at this journal. I was in a similar situation, and I was advised to snail mail, and I got prompt responses.
  • Thanks -- I will try snail mail.
  • Update: Received a rejection originially mailed to my old institution months ago (not quite sure why I never received it) after requesting an update via snail mail. The two readers' reports will be useful for revisions, but I can't read them in entirety because they were sloppily photocopied (the originals must be lost in the mail somwhere). I don't think anyone is to blame for the snafu, but it's a little frustrating that I could have revised the article and submitted it somewhere else weeks or even months ago. Lesson to anyone submitting to this journal (confirming above advice): DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THIS JOURNAL VIA E-MAIL!
  • My experience was that they were completely unprofessional. Long (six month?) wait for any confirmation that the article had even been sent to readers, then they took a couple more months to reject the article. One reader rejected the article but had clearly, even humorously, not read the essay very carefully, if at all. This turned out to be a joke and waste of my time.
  • I sent an article back in 2008, and although I got a fairly prompt typed-written notification that they had received the article, it took 9 months for me to get back a single reader's report where the reader didn't even get my name right (gave me 3 different last names at various points) and basically didn't say anything about the argument, research, structure, etc.  Instead, the reader quibbled with the wording of one of my footnotes for a few paragraphs. I submitted originally because I heard that they provided careful and thoughtful readers' reports, but this was not my experience at all.
  • I submitted an article in June 2012 and received a rejection in November 2012, accompanied by two cursory and condescending readers' responses. As noted above, it was clear that they hadn't read the submission carefully, and maybe hadn't even gotten beyond the introduction. The rationale for rejection was that the argument wasn't appropriate to the journal; fair enough, but why take 5 months to determine that? Also, one of the readers referred to me by name in his/her report; evidently peer review is only "single blind" at this journal. I won't be submitting here again.
  • Question: The submission instructions on ELR's website say to follow the outdated 2nd edition of the MLA style manual (perhaps these are old instructions?) and the MLA Directory of Periodicals says modified Chicago style. Which is it?
  • I used modified Chicago and didn't have any objections to my submission based on format.
  • I had a generally positive experience with this journal in 2013, through first an original and then a revised submission. Both times I received substantive feedback and a board decision within three months. I also did not have the problems with communication that some of the previous posters experienced: the editorial assistants corresponded promptly via email (acknowledging receipt of my submission or addressing concerns I had about timeline; I probably corresponded half a dozen times over email with two different assistants). My essay was ultimately rejected, and I'm not thrilled about the way it got blocked seemingly by a single reader, but those things can happen at any journal. Overall, they were efficient and professional.
  • I am a member of the ELR editorial board, writing in (in Spring, 2014) to apologize to those of you who have had frustrating experiences communicating with the journal in the past. Our editor-in-chief does still occasionally use his typewriter, but you can *always* reach our editorial assistant via email at elr@english.umass.edu.  While the majority of our submissions receive a decision from us in four months or fewer (we meet three times a year as a board to discuss submissions -- usually in early May, late September, and late January), certain things can delay the process, as at any journal. Sometimes a reader does not submit a report on time. Sometimes we get contradictory reports and decide to send the essay out for another reading. We are always frustrated by these delays, since we have all suffered at the hands of slow journals ourselves! But in general, we try to be as prompt as possible with our limited staff without moving to the "no reports" model that a few other journals in our field use. I see nearly all of our readers' reports, and most of them are careful, respectful, and thorough.  But for those of you who were unhappy with the tone of your responses: I will take this issue up with the board at our next meeting. That shouldn't be happening.
  • I had an *excellent* experience with ELR. Sent in an article (hardcopy, as directed) in December 2013. Got a hardcopy confirmation they had received my article shortly thereafter. In March, after the reader had not gotten back to them, they sent me a polite email explaining the situation and saying they would have an answer after their board meeting in May. Just got a notification of acceptance today. Very impressed by their speed, professionalism, and transparency.
  • Good experience with ELR despite rejection. Submitted my article (hard copy) in January 2015, got a quick acknowledgement by mail, then received 2 useful readers' reports with rejection (also by mail) in March 2015.
  • My article was held for 9 months before being rejected. I believe there was a disagreement among two readers and a third had to be called in to break a tie, thus the delay. Readers' reports included some helpful advice, but one contained condescending speculations on my personality rather than restricting its critique to the ideas in my article.
  • The worst readers' reports I have ever received. They were condescending, suggesting that I perhaps was writing my dissertation (that was 16 years ago, thank you), unhelpful and rude. They also included multiple spelling mistakes, suggesting a complete lack of professionalism. I will never submit here again.

English StudiesEdit

  • 10 weeks, 1 detailed reviewer, R+R, resubmission accepted inside a week. Proofs received 15 months later. Another few months to print. So a swift and thorough review process, but time to print not ideal.
  • The same experience; quick turnaround, helpful comments, but slow to come to print.
  • Not sure it should be in this section; they publish work on any literature in English (as well as lots of linguistics work), not just that from England.
  • Point taken. However, given its title and focus, the journal probably belongs here more than any other page (one could  make a similar point about ELH, for example, but there's not been a debate about keeping it on this page). "Comparative" tends to refer to journals that also publish work on literature and/or theory from non-English language traditions, which are explicitly excluded in this journal's focus on "the language, literature, and culture of the English-speaking world from the Anglo-Saxon to the present day." It could also be posted on the "Postcolonial" or "American" pages, but those categories don't seem to do justice to the journal's breadth, either. I think someone looking to find or share information about this journal would probably check this page first, and, however imperfect, it's more helpful to keep all the comments on one page rather than cross-posting across several pages. 
  • Amazing experience. Ten weeks from submission to acceptance with emails from editors every step of the way. I did not receive any reviewers' notes, but that may be because they requested no revisions--just some citation format issues addressed in an email from the editor. I would have liked to see the reviewer notes anyway, but that's a small thing. I'm expecting proofs this spring. (2016)
  • Have had positive experiences with this journal. My impression from colleagues is that the editor personally renders verdicts on medieval submissions, for good or for ill. 
  • I have already submitted to this journal but received no reply. I mean they should at least text back to let me know if they are considering it for review.

Essays in CriticismEdit

  • Turnaround is glacier slow (10 months!), but notes are helpful.
  • 12+ months for me
  • "Under review" for 9 months, then ambiguously worded editor's comment amounting roughly to a R&R; after resubmission, another 8 months' icy silence before I finally withdrew the ms. - at which point the editor sent me a rejection letter that they'd presumably kept there for a while, without bothering to send it to me till then. Never again.
  • One reason for slow reviews is apparently that they're committed to giving feedback on every submission. I also understand that the review process only occasionally goes outside the editorial board.

The ExplicatorEdit

  • A Pretty Good Experience: Submitted an essay in December 2015 and got the acceptance mail in August 2016. They were a bit tardy in replying to my queries re the status but the eventual review comments were fair and balanced.  
  • Turnaround is efficient. I submitted something in 2013. It was roughly four months from submission to decision (with two very brief reports supplied). The article was then scheduled to appear in print three months post-decision (and online even earlier than that). 
  • Some two months between submission and acceptance. They're quick. 
  • (in 2011)- 1 month to decision (R&R), I took 1 month to revise, then in 7 weeks, I received an accept. Easy to work with and very quick turnaround. Submitted a second article in August 2014, and no response as of November, so slower this time.  
  • Submitted an essay in July 2014, no response as of July 2015.  
  • The journal's use of ScholarOne Manuscripts as its platform for handling submissions is making the editorial process quite transparent--a simple check-in with the site tells you exactly where your manuscript is in the review process.  Things seem to be moving along very efficiently as of mid-July 2015 on a manuscript submitted in mid-June 2015; the essay has been assigned to an external reader and the journal is awaiting that reader's recommendation.
  • June 2015: Positive experience with this journal. Entire process took approximately one year. Submitted in June of '14, received an R&R in October. Resubmitted in December and was accepted in March. The feedback was helpful and detailed and all interactions were professional. Published in June of 15.
  • October 2015: Very slow turnaround. Originally submitted in June 2014; received revise and resubmit in Feb 2015. Resubmitted in Feb 2015 and still have not heard in Oct 2015. I have sent an inquiry, but no response. The online system has said "Waiting for EE recommendation" for 5 months now.
  • October 2015: My experience is even worse than the previous reviewer's. I submitted a paper in July 2014. I've heard nothing so far. Manuscript center says "Awaiting CE Scores" for months. When I asked about it by email, I received no response. It is only a 3-4 page long essay, so I can't understand why it takes so long.

James Joyce QuarterlyEdit

  • Very slow.
  • Yeah, they're a little slow, but very professional. Got terrific reader's reports, including a very helpful cover letter from the editor, and excellent copy-editing on the back end. In this case, the slowness seems to be due to care and diligence. Very positive experience.
  • Yes very slow 6+ months and then one paragraph rejection...would have rather had a desk reject.

Journal of English and Germanic Philology (JEGP)Edit

  • Was asked to write a book review; then they didn't send me the book until nearly the deadline. Disorganized!
  • Sent a book review on time but they didn't get it turned around in time for publication in the anticipated volume. Ditto on the earlier description of JEGP as disorganized!
  • A little slow, and wish they'd join the new century and not send paper letters, but their article decline was polite and friendly.
  • Exceptionally slow process--submission to publication.

Journal of the Northern Renaissance Edit

  •  Thinking of submitting here. Is this a good idea?
  •  Same here. How rigorous is the peer-review? What's the process like in comparison to "traditional" print-based journals? Thanks in advance.
  • I have had very good experiences with this journal. The peer-review process is quick and generous in feedback. Very friendly editors. I really like their open-access approach.
  • I have peer reviewed for this journal and, looking from the other end of the process, found the editors very professional and thorough. My reports were between nine and ten pages long.

Journal of the Wooden O SymposiumEdit


Keats-Shelley JournalEdit


Medieval and Renaissance Drama in EnglandEdit

  • Three months from submission to acceptance, with no revisions requested. Two years and a half between acceptance and actual publication.
  • A fast turnaround, and the essay was accepted without revisions, but they're annual, so the wait to see the peice in print is long.
  • NB: This journal is not peer reviewed. They publish some solid work from some big names, but it's still not actually peer reviewed.
    • Is this true? The MLA Directory of Periodicals states that the journal is peer reviewed.

Milton QuarterlyEdit

  • Bad experience. After submission, I heard nothing in return for the first eight months. Then the editor sent an email indicating a "spit decision" that meant he would have to send the article--which he no longer possessed--out to another reader to break the tie. I was no more thrilled to learn that a single reader would decide the fate of my submission than I was to learn that I would have to resend it and continue waiting. Resent the article and received a rejection after six months -- it had now taken a total of 14 -- including one very short and curt report from a reader who, it would seem, chose not to take the article seriously. The other two reports -- a revise and resubmit and a flat out no -- offered helpful advice but seemed more to oppose publication due to their own Miltonic commitments than the plausibility of my admittedly unorthodox assertion (which other colleagues in my field have called persuasive.) Would not recommend submitting here unless you have plenty of time to wait at the very least six to eight months.
  • Submitted an article for review in August, 2011. As of March 2012, no word. Contacted editor in July 2012; was told that they were still waiting on one of the reader's reports. No contact since then. Emailed in Sept 2012 to check up on status. Currently awaiting response.
  • Positive experience here. Submitted article in early 2011, received detailed notes from reader and editor, re-submitted with final publication occurring in late 2011. I did take some emailing to nudge the process along, but in the end it did not seem unreasonable.
  • Submitted an article early in the summer of 2013; contacted editor after about four months and was told that the manuscript was out with readers; contacted editor in May 2014 and was told that the response (a slightly ambiguous rejection) had been sent back in March and apparently lost in the mail.
  • I submitted an article for review in November 2013 and only received an email from them in May 2014. But they were asking for another copy of my submission since they had lost some files (or something like that). I resubmitted immediately and was told I would hear back in a couple of weeks. As of January 2016, I still haven't heard from them.
  • Submitted essay for review in June 2014. Received prompt acknowledgment of receipt and told mid September would hear of decision. No word, so emailed in October 2014. No word, so I (very politely) emailed again in December, February, etc with no responses until May, when the editor replied and said they had sent word to me in January that they were sending out the piece to an additional reader to break a tie (I still can find no record of such correspondence). After further polite email nudging (and claims on the side of MQ that again I must have somehow missed an email) they granted me an R&R the first week of August 2015, with helpful feedback. Would not recommend unless you have no timeline by which you would like to see a judgment (i.e. if you are a graduate student, I would submit to them at least two years before you are on the market).
  • Very positive, pleasant experience here: confirmation of receipt from editor within several weeks of submission, and several months later clear, detailed suggestions for R&R. From submission to print - about 1 year. Recommend highly.

Milton StudiesEdit

  • I had a very positive experience with this journal as both an author and (on one occasion) a reviewer, but that was under Al Labriola, so I can't comment on the current review process. I hope it remains as thoughtful and efficient.
  • Excellent experience.  I received a response after three months, with two helpful readers reports.
  • I had a decidedly positive experience too--received a brief response from the editor right after I emailed her my manuscript, and had a decision quite quickly (three months). The process since then has been efficient and downright pleasant.
  • I wanted to add that I have had positive experiences with this journal years ago when it was edited by Al Labriola and more recently under the current editor.

Modern DramaEdit

  • Anyone had any experience with this journal? How fast is their review process?

Nineteenth-Century ContextsEdit

  • Is this journal still as frustrating to work with, as of 2016 September? Anyone? I went online and it seems that they've been diligent in uploading the journal on the web... 
  • Has anyone worked with them recently? (2016) 
  • Frustrating experience with this journal. Submitted an article, and then after checking in and receiving non-committal responses from managing editor after six and nine months, finally withdrew article after a year. Got a non-committal response to my request for withdrawal, promising that the editor would get back to me shortly (even though I no longer cared, as I was withdrawing). Editor still never got back to me. 
  • I had a very similar experience. (x3)

Nineteenth-Century ProseEdit


ParergonEdit

  • I always find their rejections a little snarky, but they're pretty quick with turnaround and give detailed reports.
  • 2013: Submitted article and received revise and resubmit within three months. The comments were very helpful and clear. Resubmitted and received acceptance within 6 weeks. Published in 2014. Overall a great experience.

Persuasions: The Jane Austen JournalEdit

  • Annual publication
  • My article was reviewed and accepted for publication within a week, subject to my revising the article as directed.
  • Editorial guidance was excellent: clear, insightful, carefully thought-out direction.The editor responds to every email within 24 hours. The correspondence is invariably courteous and professional.

Notes and QueriesEdit

  • Rejected, slightly strange in that they said they accepted the validity of my conjecture but did not wish to publish it.
  • Five month review period (May-Nov). Rejection with no feedback.
  • One-sentence rejection email with no explanation for rejection and no commentary on emailed submission. 3 month review period.
  • Submitted an article in August 2006, received an acceptance in January 2007. No commentary or feedback, but an acceptance. The publication process was quick, efficient, and professional: my note was published within 7 months of acceptance.
  • Submitted article mid-April 2013, received acceptance mid-July. As above, no feedback. Article is scheduled to be published in December, five months from acceptance. 
  • Submitted a piece in September 2013, and as of March May 2014 have not heard a word back.
  • I have published five articles with this journal. Replies have always come within 3 months from submission. Very professional journal.
  • Sub late June. Accept late September. Slated for publication in June.
  • Very professional journal, excellent editor. My article was accepted within a month!
  • Submitted in November 2015, and my article was accepted in less than two weeks. Was told that I'll be contacted soon with further details. Excellent experience.
  • Once you've been accepted a few times, the level of detailed editorial scrutiny really goes down. Not sure if this is a plus or a minus.
  • Submitted a note in March 2016. Accepted eight weeks later with no feedback. Published online in July 2016 and included in the September 2016 issue.

Review of English StudiesEdit

  • I had an excellent experience submitting and then publishing with RES. I submitted my article in May 2014 and 2 months later received 2 long, detailed, and thoughtful readers' reports. These reports addressed the big-picture argument, sub-arguments, and individual sentences, phrases, and facts. The period editor summarized the reports and invited me to resubmit with extensive revision. Other projects preventing my working on the paper for some time, and the editor of RES was understanding and readily granted me an extension. When I did send in a dramatically revised version, after only 2 weeks I received a wise report from the period editor, asking me to trim the piece substantially. When I resubmitted again (after requesting, and receiving, another extension), I received after 6 weeks an acceptance of the article, pending minor changes. The copyediting experience too went smoothly: I found a few mistakes going over proofs, and also had to make a few last-minute changes, and the gracious copy-editor righted all wrongs. The article was published online 1 week after I approved the final proof. It was then published in print 6 months later. Throughout the process, the readers, editors, and copyeditor were rigorous, meticulous, patient, and professional.
  • A very positive experience: the feedback was helpful and courteous and the whole process thoroughly professional and quick.
  • Have published twice with RES, once in 2006 and once in 2015. 2015 piece garnered really helpful feedback from period editor - who took an extraordinary amount of time - and 2 readers. Accepted with minor revisions. What I will say is, the period editor also employed a graduate assistant of some type to proofread, and this was not so helpful, as he made some actual errors (his advice conflicted with the RES style sheet) and also some poorly advised stylistic recommendations. In the main, though, a really good experience which improved my article no end and in which I was treated with courtesy and consideration.
  • Fantastic editorial experience: kind and helpful comments - with pointed critique. And quick!
  • One month from submission to rejection. Reader's notes were polite, insightful, and theoretically helpful.
  • Article submitted received a revise-and-resubmit exactly one month later; I was very happy with the turn-around time. Comments from period editor were useful and polite; comments from outside reader were a mix of useful and condescending. After revising, the outside reader again required more revisions three months later. The tone of his/her comments was again sarcastic and several of the suggestions were truly ill-advised (calling for poor stylistic changes and factually incorrect changes). After selectively revising a second time and resubmitting, I was notified within two weeks that the piece was accepted. Be aware that Oxford journals use an online submission system that is cumbersome, form heavy, and often cryptic.
  • Annual RES best graduate student essay prize is worth noting. If you are a graduate student submitting to RES, it is certainly worth a shot: I was lucky enough to win it a few years back and found that it gave my essay a higher profile on my cv, which can't hurt. Like another poster above, I found the turn-around prompt.
  • Submitted article for essay prize; received very quick, kind rejection note with helpful feedback.
  • Submitted an article and received a rejection about 2 months later. It was a quick turn-around, and the rejection was really polite and for the most part, useful. The 1st reviewer had much positive feedback and seemed enthusiastic about publishing the piece, but the 2nd reviewer wasn't so enthusiastic. He/she was a bit condescending in tone and it became apparant that he/she failed to read the article closely. He/she mentioned that the work was admirable and hoped that I continued work in the area I had written on, but criticized the fact that I hadn't included discussion or even a passing reference to another scholar's previous work on a theme discussed in the paper.  If he/she had read my article closely he/she would have seen that I referred to and discussed the scholar in question on the very first page of my article (and had a reference in footnote #1). Fair enough.  I wish a rewrite and resubmit was offered, but the editor mentioned that they receive a large number of articles and can only accept a small few.  The period-editor listed  a number of highly rated journals that will probably consider the article --- once I consider the reviewers remarks. I am not put off by the rejection, just annoyed by some of the unwarranted feedback from one reviewer. Still, I hope to submit again in the future, as the overall experience with RES has been positive.
  • Highly negative experience: took over six months and repeated prodding to receive a response on a short (7k-word) essay. Reader report explaining the rejection was brief, unhelpful, and condescending. Won't submit to again and don't recommend.
  • Had a good experience. After withdrawing my article from another journal after it failed to get back to me within 8 months, sent it to RES. They returned it within two weeks (!) with a rejection but some helpful readers' reports. I wouldn't hesitate to submit another article to them.
  • Fantastic experience: from submission to acceptance in three months, online publication the month thereafter. Reader and area editor both courteous and helpful.
  • I've submitted twice: a quick, helpful, courteous rejection and a quick intelligent r and r process (three readers and very valuable comments from period editor) that led to quick publication. Fast, smart, and you're proud of your work when you're done working with them. Highly recommended.
  • I've had very positive experiences with RES. The relevant period editor was very helpful, both with comments on the pieces in question and with some other concerns that affected my ability complete revisions in a timely fashion. I had very professional, helpful comments from the outside readers, and whether working on an article or a book review, I've found that the journal's production staff moves swiftly and professionally through the process.

RomanticismEdit


SEL: Studies in English Literature 1500-1900Edit

  • I have not submitted here, but I have heard from others that SEL can take a verryyy looonnng time to get back to you with a response (like over a year).
  • My submission was accepted exactly 4 months after it was received, as indicated on their website. Over two years before it's slated for publication, but that's because it's basically an annual (SEL's four annual issues each cover a different sub-field). Based on my experience, I would highly recommend submitting here as long as you don't mind a long wait between acceptance and publication.
  • I had an article under review at this journal for 2 years. I kept in touch with the editor, who kept promising that he's have something for me shortly. Eventually, I withdrew the publication.
  • Received a timely (ie: exactly 4 month) rejection. Be aware, however, for those who work in the early modern period: one of their reviewers uses scholarship from the 1930s and Google searches in order to vet information in submissions (which presents a real problem if you are offering them newly discovered material that contradicts older scholarship). You may want to save yourself the 4 months and send it to somewhere with a more relevant and up-to-date slate of readers.
  • Received a timely (4 month) request to revise and resubmit, together with a detailed and extraordinarily helpful reader report. Received a timely acceptance after revision. Great experience; kind, courteous, professional people.
  • I also had a long (1 year +) wait. Revise & Resubmit, but one of the reader reports was a thinly veiled ad hominem attack and not constructive at all. Would not recommend submitting here.
  • I submitted once (can we say how unfun paper submission is versus online?) and got a very quick (<month) return (by mail) saying they hadn't sent it to readers due to [insert list of embarassing formatting issues]. When I sent it back, I had a response in less than a month (acceptance with minimal revisions), but a tight turnaround due to a slot opening up in the next relevant issue. Otherwise, my article would have appeared the next year. I'd be interested to see if this varies by period, as SEL covers four different "chunks" of English Lit (i.e., Early Mod v. 18C v. Romantic v. 19C reviewers)
  • Submissions can now be made online
  • Can anyone share experience submitting more recently, after the online system was in place? My suspicion is that this could significantly speed up the process.
  • Submitted, and waited the requisite six months for a revise-and-resubmit decision. After I resubmitted my essay, the editors got back to me very quickly (within a month or so) with an acceptance. Great readers' reports, too (I'm an early modernist). Highly recommend submitting to this journal.
  • I had heard some horror stories about this venue, but it turned out to be rather pleasant, surprisingly, It took them four months to get back to me, requesting some minor revisions, and then another three weeks to accept the revised version. One reader`s report plus comments from the period editor, a few lines each, both basically asking to clarify andéor elaborate the same point of my argument. The questions were valid and very professionally phrased. Again, after what I heard I am surprised.
  • Received a R&R exactly 4 months after submission. The reader responses were varied: the first's critique was strong--the type you would expect for a rejection--and asked for very fundamental revisions to the argument. The second response was an "excerpt" and just one sentence long that suggested I add another work to my analysis. Revised my manuscripted, re-submitted it, and received a rejection a couple of weeks later (it was only sent to the first reader). Request for the full response from the second reader was denied (editor said it was an in-house review, only a few sentences long, and mainly concurred with the first reviewer). A frustrating experience.
  • I had a positive experience with this journal. I submitted an article here (using the online system), and received a warmly-phrased revise-and-resubmit almost exactly four months later, with two detailed reader reports requesting a number of changes. I made the changes and resubmitted the manuscript about a month later. I received an acceptance approximately 5 weeks after resubmitting the article, accompanied with brief, positive reports from the two original readers.
  • Received a warm R&R approximately 7 months after submission. Not a fast process, but I'm glad I waited as the reader's report (I only got one) was very positive and included detailed recommendations for revision.
    • Addendum: Once I submitted my revisions I was told my original reader couldn't read my new version and then given a new reader who was dismissive of my article and asked for more extensive revisions. Though frustrated, I completed them and got an acceptance.
  • Submitted an article and did not hear back from them for eight months. Wrote to inquire only to be told that the reader hasn't gotten to it yet but the editor thought it would eventually have been rejected. No other feedback.
  • Submitted a manuscript in May 2015. Waited requisite four months for a response, inquired and received a request for R&R the same day. The R&R request seemed to come from an editor, who noted that the piece had not yet been sent to outside readers. After revision and resubmission, I received a rejection after approximately 5 more months. I got one detailed and thoughtful reader's report. I was disappointed with the outcome, but happy with the professionalism and detail of the journal's correspondence.

Shakespeare (Routledge journal)Edit

  • Excellent experience here. Fast reply (3 months) with four reader reports from clear experts on my topic. Editor was very helpful guiding me through how to best respond to reader comments. Recommended.
  • acceptance within 6 months with good reader reports. had a friend with a bad experience, though.
  • My first acceptance was here, so they're welcoming to new scholars. Quick reply (2-3 months) from submission. I got a revise and resubmit with extensive and helpful comments from three readers. The R&R notice asked that revisions be gotten in with all due speed, or the article would have to be considered a new submission. About six weeks later, I received a reminder asking if I could have the revisions to them within two weeks, which a professor said was highly unusual. I sent them the revisions late on a Friday night and by Saturday afternoon had an acceptance back from them. Overall a very good experience. [July 2013]
  • Very good experience here. Sent in an article and within three months received an acceptance letter with requests for minor revisions and reviewer notes. The managing editor was wonderful, friendly, communicative and helpful. I enjoyed the experience of working with this journal very much.
  • Good experience (summer 2016). Two readers reports two months following submission. Was rejected but would submit here again.

Shakespeare BulletinEdit

  • Excellent experience here. Submitted and received R&R with two helpful reader reports after just three weeks (!). Submitted revised article one month later, received acceptance from editor with minor changes within several days. Copyediting was completed over the next two weeks, and the article is on track to be published within six months of first submission. Incredibly fast turn-around. Editorial staff was friendly, constructive, and helpful. Would absolutely work with the journal again.

Shakespearean International Yearbook (Ashgate)Edit


Shakespeare JahrbuchEdit


Shakespeare NewsletterEdit

  • Submitted November 2013, waiting to hear. 

Shakespeare QuarterlyEdit

  • Excellent (though harrowing) experience! Submitted a piece in Nov. 2014 and received three readers' reports about six months later, April 2015: the first was a VERY generous and VERY critical revise and resubmit; the second a dismissive paragraph (that I assume was a rejection, though it didn't say so), which led the editors to send my work out to a third reader; and that third reader gave it an enthusiastic revise and resubmit. All this added up to a revise and resubmit, but with words of caution that the revisions were quite fundamental and would require significant further research. I spent over a year on the revisions and sent it back in June 2016. Within a month I had received a provisional acceptance with a request for more revisions; when I sent those back it was officially accepted in less than 10 days. The editors and readers at SQ have made this a MUCH superior piece I'm very proud of. I recommend submitting here.
  • I submitted in early 2014 and received two reader's assessments mid-year. One was a rejection and the other was a "revise and resubmit." That added up to a rejection, but both readers gave thoughtful feedback, which I used to revise the submission. It was accepted by a journal of equal standing, so I think it was worth the growth provided by the rejection and feedback from SQ.
  • My article got a quick and snippy rejection in three weeks. I understand they get a lot of submisisons, but feel a bit more care for them would be desirable. Also, as a reader of the journal I recognize the below commentator's point about an excessive emphasis on "bright young things" which means one is reading work by only one generation and is deprived from reading senior scholars.
  • Submitted an article in July 2009, received a rejection at the beginning of January 2010. Two detailed reader reports, as well as the main editor's summary judgment. Reports were detailed, and I felt, on the whole, right about what was wrong with the article. They were balanced insofar as they pointed out some positive things, even in the midst of their critique. I did not enjoy reading these reports, because they were rejections, but I did learn from them, and subsequently revised my entire approach when I turned the article into a (hopefully more successful) book chapter. My impression is that it is very hard to get a piece into SQ but I still recommend submitting to it for grad students/junior scholars because the feedback is in-depth and thoughtful, even if you are rejected. At least that was my experience.
  • My experience couldn't be more different than the above. Submitted in 2010, after 2 months received rejection email from editor with no readers' reports. The editor noted that the article had made it to the editorial board, so I am not sure why readers' reports were not included. Have heard from others that their feedback is often quite detailed so was very disappointed. Not sure this is the best journal for younger scholars at the moment, since the editor has stated in an interview (excerpted below) that he feels the journal is publishing too much work by junior scholars, an imbalance he'd like to redress. (http://shakespearequarterly.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/introducing-the-shakespeare-quarterly-forum/):
  • DS: One of the interesting things about Shakespeare Quarterly is that it’s become the journal that young academics very much want to get into, because it gives them the imprimatur of being a really serious scholar. And I think it’s extremely good that Shakespeare Quarterly has been willing to publish assistant professors and even Ph.D. students. But it worries me a little that that sort of author seems to have predominated in the last couple of years—while the senior members of the field have largely stopped publishing in the journal. There are very, very few established senior people sending us their work.
  • Would you like to see more of that senior-level work?
  • DS: I’d like to see a mix of the kinds of bright young academics establishing a career, publishing alongside senior people who have something new to say.
  • Interesting. Thanks for posting that interview!
  • Submitted an article June or July 2011 and received revise and resubmit end of November 2011. Two detailed and extremely helpful readers' reports.
  • VERY snarky (and quick--three weeks) and off-hand dismissal of a piece that has since been well-received elsewhere--dismayingly unprofessional. I've had plenty of rejections (as well as two fistfuls of acceptances), and this was the most insulting communication I've ever had from an editor.
  • Q. (7/21/12): ^^^When was this? Current editor?
  • A. (7/30/12): Current editor--beginning of this year.
  • I had a similar experience to two of the respondents above. I was told very quickly (about three weeks as well) that the editorial board had rejected my article. The tone was rather snarky and dismissive. Given the speed, I think the editorial board is not the last stop after readers, but rather the first stop to determine whether or not an article will go to readers at all. It's not clear, but I don't think making it to the "editorial board" is a sign of any great or extensive progress through their system. The same article was accepted elsewhere, so it wasn't that it lacked merit--it's the current editor.
  • Submitted in August 2012, received two conflicting readers' reports in October, along with an editor's letter that suggested the board agreed with the negative reader's (generally obtuse and unhelpful) objections. Revised and resubmitted, and I *think* the piece went back to the negative reader, but in any case it was rejected. With both submissions, I got feedback very swiftly, so I'd characterize my experience as positive.
  • UPDATE: The current editor, David Schalkwyk, is stepping down [August 2013]
  • Submitted an article in early August, received rejection in mid-December with no feedback whatsoever.
  • Submitted in Nov 2013. Two critical reports in March 14, with surprising invitation to revise and resubmit. Submitted revision in july. Accepted in August. The readers for this journal are extremely sharp and helpful, as was the editor. It is a tough slog, but if you can get to the reader review stage definitely worth the effort, as your essay will become much better on account of their criticisms.
  • Submitted a "note" at beginning of August 2014; received rejection email in mid-September 2014. The email summarized the readers' concerns about the piece, although they accepted the main argument, and even suggested submission "as is" at another journal.
  • Though I got many rejections from that journal but I really recommend it. After I deal with all the problems they mention, my article gets accepted elsewhere easily. Last time, I made it through the readers but the editor told me they will not be able to publish my article because it still is not exactly what they want. He pointed a few issues that I could easily overcome because thu his remarks were short, they were very clear. It made it elsewhere easily after that.

Shakespeare Studies Edit

  • Received rejection with no feedback 3 months after submission. Will not be submitting to this journal again.

Shakespeare Survey (Cambridge)Edit


Shakespeare Yearbook (Mellen)Edit

  • Is this still an extant journal? Last published in 2011?

Sidney Journal. Edit

  • Turnaround time for articles is swift: was told 2-4 months, and received a response in 2. Reader's reports were fair and courteous, with good suggestions for improving the article (which was eventually accepted).
  • I had a similar experience.  The article was initially sent back with brief comments (probably from the editor, not readers, though it was a little unclear) asking for a major structural revision for it to be considered, period.  I revised and resubmitted, received two extremely helpful reader reports, revised again, and the article was accepted.  The whole process took about 6 months, and the editor was communicative and kind throughout.  
  • I just had an unexpectedly poor experience with this journal. Turn around time was indeed swift. Two suggestions were potentially helpful (one on restructuring, the other on extending the argument), but the third, which was what disqualified it from publication, was a misreading on the part of the reader (editor?). The review misquotes another scholar's perspective with which the essay was engaging, not the argument of the essay itself. In general, the review seemed cursory and disengaged, almost as if someone just skimmed the essay. Really disappointed, not with the rejection, but with the quality of the feedback, especially from a specialist journal with such a good reputation for collegiality and review quality.  

Spenser StudiesEdit

  • Although I have not submitted my own scholarship to this journal, I recommended that two recent PhD students working under me send essays. Both received timely (within 4 months), helpful, and generous readers' reports (and both articles were accepted).
  • I had an excellent experience with Spenser Studies. While there was a longish (5-6 month) wait for feedback, the four reader's reports I got (in two rounds of revisions) were much more detailed than those of other journals. My article was eventually accepted after two rounds of revisions, and it was much improved by the process. 

Studies in the Age of ChaucerEdit

  • Submitted article in 2013, received reply (negative) with reader's report within two months. very professional.
  • They're choosy and rejected my work without being sent to readers, but the comments from the editor were extensive and encouraging.
  • Very similar experience - speedy response, but rejected without being sent to readers as not being suitable for this particular journal. Very astute and sensitive comments by editor, with helpful suggestions for improvement, and overall nicely encouraging about the quality of my research.

Studies in PhilologyEdit

  • Extremely positive experience: article received an expeditious review (and acceptance), astute suggestions for improvement, and professional and attentive editing.
  • Three months review. My submission was accepted with two very helpful suggestions that strengthened the article. A year and a half lead time to publication, but as someone else notes, it is worth the wait because it's SP. Editorial staff has been very professional in their interaction with me.
  • Three month review period. Received helpful reader's report (rejection). Professional throughout.
  • Had a very positive experience here. The journal responded (revise & accept) within 4 months to my initial submission with very helpful and actionable readers' reports.
  • Responded about a month and a half after submission (minor revisions) with one detailed and very sharp reader's report. Accepted shortly after I made revisions, though the wait for publication was about 1.5 years. They seem very organized and I was left with a very positive impression of the journal and its editor.
  • Very positive experience. Revise and resubmit within two months of initial submission and acceptance almost immediately following revised submission. They also have excellent copy editors--more thorough than most journals. 1.5 years between acceptance and publication, but that's not bad compared to a number of other top journals.
  • Positive experience even though rejected. Submitted in May 2014; heard back exactly two months later with one very helpful reader's report.
  • Also had a positive experience. Less than two-month review period. Editor's correspondence was professional, courteous, and prompt. 2+ years between acceptance and publication, but worth the wait because it's SP.
  • Timely turnaround with thorough and exceptionally perceptive remarks from the editor. Help during the production process was astute and professional. Everyone I communicated with was considerate and friendly. A great experience overall.
  • Astonishingly fast, my article was accepted without revisions within two weeks (autumn 2016). A positive experience overall.

Studies in RomanticismEdit

  • I wrote for the journal several times under its past editorship, have no direct experience with the current editorship but they are respected scholars and the journal should continue to be on course
  • Editor is very kind and prompt in his responses. Still the best Romanticism journal out there.

Upstart: A Journal of English Renaissance Studies (formerly The Upstart Crow: A Shakespeare Journal)Edit

  • Very quick acceptance, but it took forever for the issue to actually come out--it was almost a year late. I don't know what caused the holdup.
  • NOTE: "The Upstart Crow (1978-2013) discontinued publishing with Volume XXXI, 2012 (published on March 1, 2013)" and reluanched online as Upstart: A Journal of English Renaissance Studies For more on the journal's mission and scope, see the website. Decisions ideally made within two months.

Victorian Literature and CultureEdit

  • Had a great experience with their editor for a special issue; she was kind enough to answer some trivial questions I had for her (like what their word limit was. Surprisingly, they don't have one). Got very succinct reader's reports from 2 outside readers, but I wonder if it was a blind review as one of the reviewers referred to me by my last name. I got a revise and resubmit (after about 5 months from the time I submitted my work), and eventually, an acceptance.
  • Six months between submission and acceptance. The one downside -- no reader's reports (just direct communication from editor); would have been nice to get some engaged feedback, but can't really complain. Was a bit slower between acceptance and publication (more than a year) due to intervening special issues.
  • Cursory rejection letter. In retrospect, quite right, though.
  • Prompt (3.5 month) turnaround time between submission and rejection.  The rejection was a form letter (no readers' reports), but included an encouraging postscript with the editors' suggestion of a journal they thought would be a better fit.
  • Submitted in March. Acknowledgment of receipt took a few weeks. Then heard nothing for about 3 months. Sent email to editor who promised to read the essay and get back to me in a month. Heard nothing. After 3 more months I sent another email. Editor promised to read it in a month. Got back to me in 2 weeks saying that they enjoyed my article and would like to send it to a reader. Finally got a reject 8 months after submission with a 1 paragraph reader "feedback" that indicated the reader didn't read the article very closely. Very odd experience.
  • Had an experience generally similar to the above comment, I did not feel the process was unfair, just a bit odd.
  • Acknowledgment of receipt within a few days. The first review, rejecting the paper and suggesting major revisions, after a little over 3 months. The same when I submitted a revised version, this time accepted with some minor revisions. The back-and-forth about the minor revisions took about two months and bonus points for the editors to do it in the summer season. Overall it took about 10 months from the first e-mail accepting the paper with suggesting minor revisions to the last e-mail telling me in which volume the article was going to appear.

Victorian PoetryEdit

  • Received rejection four months after submission. Reader report was very thorough and provided a great deal of valuable advice that allowed me to revise the piece and have it published elsewhere.
  • Acceptance after 6 months. There appears to be about a 1.5-2 year lag between acceptance and publication.
  • Rigorous; have been rejected there, but have felt editorship was attentive and responsive.
  • Very positive experience with this journal--my article was accepted within a few months.
  • Good experience, also found out my piece was published in the same volume as an essay written by an undergraduate student! Really cool that they support young scholars.

Victorian ReviewEdit

  • Accepted with minor revisions after 4 months, detailed and careful reader's reports.
  • Issues seem to be backlogged by a few months
  • Issues are backlogged by over a year in print, even longer for updates to Project Muse
  • Great experience here. At the gate the submissions editor is responsive and helpful. The readers' reports are thorough and fair. In today's publishing market either one of these is a virtue. The combination is rare and welcome.

Victorian StudiesEdit

  • They don't want work on a single author or book, or even work that is defined specifically within English Stdies. If you are broad and interdisciplinary in your work, you stand a good chance.
  • Received a prompt (two weeks) and extremely courteous rejection.
  • Made my first ever article submission here as a clueless grad student and received a very kind and helpful rejection that helped me revise the article into something that was really publishable. It was probably the best first rejection slip one can have, and I'm genuinely grateful.
  • Astoundingly speedy response - under two months. Two helpful and positive readers' reports, in addition to a thoughtful, detailed rejection letter from the editor explaining why, in spite of the positive readers' reports, it wasn't a good fit. I've been extremely impressed by their efficiency and courtesy. (x2 - I had the same experience last year: ultimately rejected, but review took only 2 months and the review letters were complementary while offering thoughtful, detailed suggestions for improvement)
  • This journal and its editors have perfected the art of the "not our kind of thing" desk rejection. They kindly and clearly articulate why the article isn't a match for VS on the way to pointing out the parts of an article that shine. So even if the piece never makes it off an editor's desk there is generous and genuine feedback.
  • Similar experience - very courteous rejection in just over two months, which included two, very detailed and mostly fair, reviewers' comments.

Wordsworth CircleEdit

  • One of the most rigorous of the Romantic-Era journals, and they publish stuff on Coleridge, Southey, as well as the Wordsworths. I've always enjoyed reading and writing for it, though have only done book reviews, never an article.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.