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
Contemporary Women's WritingEdit
- Received a quick response after submission to let me know they don't publish about single works of fiction. This is not on the website, which I did consult before sending my article.
- Wonderful experience with Contemporary Women's Writing. Two months after submitting my article (spring 2016) I was invited to revise and resubmit and received very attentive, helpful readers remarks. The editors informed me that the article was accepted two weeks after I submitted revisions.
- I've submitted twice to this journal, and both times I was told my articles "did not contribute" anything new, despite the fact that my work addressed texts that had not been studied. To be perfectly honest, I truly believe this journal does not publish, or is not interested in publishing, works on Chicana/Latina literature.
differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies Edit
- Rejection no comments two months (2012)
- Rejection, no comments or readers' reports, 5 months (2013)
- Rejection with two reviewer comments (one very helpful, other just 1 paragraph), about 3 months (2013)
- Rejection with 1 readers' report, 8 months from submission (2016)
- Rejection with one reader's report (extensive and helpful), 4 months from submission (2015)
Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary JournalEdit
Feminist Formations Edit
- 2016: They had about a 4 month review period before rejection. Editors did not give any feedback. I received feedback from reviewers. However, it is strongly apparent due to each reviewers redundant suggestions that the multiple reviewers did not read beyond the first few pages of a long article. Very disappointing.
- received an R&R 4 months after submission with 2 reader reports. Accepted with revisions after resubmission (with one reader report). Sent to copy edit (November 2016). Overall, great experience with thoughtful editors and feedback.
- long review process (approx eight months); detailed feedback in letter from editor but I was not given the actual readers' reports (rejection, 2011)
- The draft was accepted with revision after 5 months (a long process but worthwhile). Very nice editors and detailed feedback from reviewers and editors (2012).
- I think FS is slow (and I can't believe they still ask for a hard copy...!) -- about 1.5 years from submission to publication -- but their editors are kind, thorough, and thoughtful, and their publication is fantastic.
- Upon receipt of submission, they wrote back to say that if you don't hear back within 6 weeks, then the board has decided that your submission is suitable for the journal and that reader's reports will likely be returned to you four months later. Editorial board is very clear on the timeline of this process which is reassuring, and the journal comes across as thoughtfully and well organized (2018).
- 2015: More than a 4 month review time before rejection; Not given any reader reports or feedback from editors; Received a rejection within hours after inquiring about the article's status, which suggests organizational challenges within the journal (How can a final rejection magically appear within hours after I inquired, more than 4 months after submission?). No evidence that anyone actually read the manuscript or that it ever got sent out for review. Be warned!
- 2016: About four months for minimal R&R comments. Accepted 1-2 weeks after revisions submitted.
GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies Edit
- Submitted 11/2016. Inquired about in 7/2017 and was told "editors are interested" and "good readers" were being sought. Inquired again in 12/2017; was told piece was in queue and could expect update in next 3-4 weeks. Two days later, received rejection with brief paragraph that was largely complimentary. Hmph.
- A journal of progressive promises has become, it seems, a place for privileged tenured professor-editors to enjoy siting on young scholar's work and despair to show their unchallengeable power. Completely disgusted.
- Very slow. I submitted 6/2014 and was told it would take "up to six months" because of a high volume of submissions. After eight months, I sent an inquiry about the status. Heard nothing. Sent another two months later. Nothing. Finally got a rejection 6/2015, no readers reports, very minimal feedback.
- Similar to above. Submitted 10/2014. Was told process takes "up to six months." Followed up 8 months later. Had to follow up 3 times before I got a response. The response was to reject the manuscript with no reviewers' comments and minimal evidence that anyone had read the manuscript. How can a journal waste 8 months of my career and not even have the decency to pass along reviewer comments?
- Submitted 5/2014 and had similar experience--the journal sat on it for 13 months, there were no responses to my polite inquiries about the status after 6 months and one year, and the rejection simply said that I should engage with a work that has been out-of-date in my field for fifteen years. Glad it's not just me, but angry that the journal wasted a year of the article's life.
Legacy: A Journal of American Women WritersEdit
- submitted 6/2013--2 detailed readers' reports in less than a month (rejection).
Meridians: feminism, race, transnationalismEdit
- submitted article 1/2012. no response as of 7/2012.
- Meridians is VERY slow. I submitted an article and didn't hear anything back for 8 months. At that point, I nudged and they sent me one not-super-detailed reader's report. Then once they accepted the article with revisions, they asked for me to make the revisions in 2.5 weeks, and then they took another four months to get back to me (again with nudging). I really do like this journal but they are very slow and not super responsive to emails.
- I agree. Slow--had the article a year without decision. EDITED: Took two years, but the reviewers comments were very helpful and constructive for an accept with revisions. Agree with wait, wait, hurry up noted below. Also, if you have something that's perfect for them, and you have some time, send it to them.
- I appreciate the comments above. Since I submitted the article in 12/2011 and have yet to hear anything as of 1/2013 & three emails later, I am determing that the article is not being considered by the journal. Has anyone else heard anything in the past year from Meridians?
- I found meridians to be very wait wait, hurry up. I submitted an article and heard absolutely nothing. It was accepted after a year and then they told me I had a few days to copy edit. It was odd. I also notice that the second issue didn't come out this year - maybe it was delayed? I'm not sure what the deal is.
- very hard to reach- and very unprofessional editorial staff. I've shared my experience with others in my field, and they have had similar experiences with Meridians. It's too bad, because I really support the journal's intellectual investments...
Nineteenth-Century Gender StudiesEdit
- Timely rejection. Detailed feedback.
- Good experience. Received helpful feedback promptly.
- rejection without comments, it is not a journal for 'gender studies' but for 'women studies' exclusively
Phoebe: A Journal of Literature and ArtEdit
Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in SocietyEdit
- Rejection (Aug 2015), 8 weeks after submission, with three detailed readers reports. One report suggested the reader hadn't been particularly attentive; the other two were helpful and on-point.
- Submitted article on 7/19/15. Got a rejection 4 days later. Letter says they receive 400 submissions per year, and decide, through an internal review process, which submissions to send for external review.
- rejection (not sent out for review) within a month. no comments given (2012)
- rejection after 3 days of submission without external review. No comments given at all (2012). Very disappointing!
- rejection after one week without external review. Disappointed but at least they responded quickly. (Feb. 2013)
- rejection within a month without external review (Dec 2014)
- I have heard that when they have a backlog they just reject every unsolicited article, but without explaining that. So, if you get rejected within a week, it probably has nothing to do with your article.
- Submitted manuscript Sept. 2015. Received R&R with detailed reviewer comments for major revisions in Nov. 2015. Revisions were due two months from date of R&R receipt. Article was accepted less than two weeks after revisions submitted. A very good experience. (Jan. 2016)
- rejection after four weeks without external review, no comments (May 2016)
- Submitted to special issue; rejected after 60 days with no external review and no comments (Nov. 2017)
Tulsa Studies in Women's LiteratureEdit
- Received an R & R after four months with very helpful readers' reports; upon revision, article was accepted in another three months. The best part was working with the managing editor, whose keen stylistic sense improved the article. A good experience all around. (6/2015)
- Rejection (no resubmit request) with substantial readers' reports after 3 months. Reviewers' reports contained positive feedback that might have suggested R & R, but editor's cover letter explained that they "cannot encourage revision at this time, when the steady stream of submissions is compelling us to be very selective. Since the journal is published just twice a year, a backlog develops quite rapidly, and for the sake of timely publication of essays that we do accept it has been necessary to adopt strict guidelines for acceptance." Editor suggested taking comments from the readers' reports to continue to work on the article (and presumably submit elsewhere). (4/2015)
- Rejection (no resubmit request) w/ substantial readers' reports after 3 months. (3/2015)
- According to an editorial assistant, my submission was back from external reviewers after five months, but I did not get a decision from the editor until 11.5 months after my initial submission. (Even though they claim that 8 months is their maximum review time.) I would not submit to this journal under any circumstances. [posted Oct. 2012]
- Submitted in 5/2012. Received a confirmation after about a week or more after I followed up. As of 6/2013, the ms. is still under review. Sent follow-up email one week ago and still no response (6/2013)
- Is this journal still active? [7/2013]
- Very much alive, just slow, and imho worth the wait.
- Received a timely rejection with substantial readers' reports that helped me revise the article for successful submission elsewhere (2011).
- is this the same as "Women's Studies. An inter-disciplinary journal"? My submission was accepted in 2010 and as of 2012 it is not even slated for publication. Minimal comments in readers' reports. --update: scheduled for publication later this year (2013)--so about 3 years to publication after acceptance
- Submitted for a special issue and never heard anything. (2010)
- Extremely slow - around 3 years from submission to publication and no communication from editors unless you harass them. Very frustrating to deal with.
- Worst-case scenario for article submission (2015-2016). After receipt was confirmed, I heard nothing from the editors for ten months. I requested an update at six mo., asked to withdraw at nine mo., and confirmed that I was submitting it elsewhere at 10 mo. No replies; the article has since been accepted at another journal.
- Took them 8 months to review. When accepted with corrections gave me 10 days to hand back. But then the article was published within two months.
WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly Edit
- Has anyone heard any updates on their special issue on "Precarious Work?"
Women's Writing Edit
Careful and thorough readers' reports and friendly editors, but extremely slow.