How to Submit to Humanities Journals

The journey from a completed manuscript to a published article in a humanities journal is often perceived as an opaque, intimidating process. Yet, with a clear understanding of the academic publishing ecosystem and strategic execution, it becomes a navigable, even empowering, experience. This definitive guide goes beyond the superficial, offering actionable insights and concrete examples to demystify journal submission for humanities scholars.

Part 1: Pre-Submission Preparation – Laying the Foundation for Success

Before you even think about hitting “submit,” meticulous preparation is paramount. This foundational work determines not only the fit of your article but also its perceived professionalism from the very first glance.

1. Understanding the Humanities Publishing Landscape

The humanities journal landscape is richly diverse, encompassing a spectrum of disciplinary focuses, theoretical orientations, and publishing models. Your first step is to internalize this diversity.

• Disciplinary Specificity: Are you writing on 18th-century French literature, contemporary art history, or philosophical ethics? Each discipline often has its core journals, but also interdisciplinary publications that bridge divides. A journal like PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) is a staple for literary studies, while The American Historical Review caters to historians.
• Theoretical Approaches: Some journals explicitly privilege certain theoretical frameworks (e.g., post-structuralist, feminist, Marxist approaches), while others are more eclectic. Critical Inquiry, for instance, is known for its engagement with contemporary theory across disciplines.
• Scope and Aims: Every reputable journal publishes a “Scope and Aims” or “About the Journal” section. Read this religiously. Do they focus on historical studies, contemporary issues, or theoretical interventions? Do they prefer empirical research, textual analysis, or philosophical argumentation? A journal dedicated to medieval studies will not consider an article on digital humanities unless it specifically addresses medieval texts through digital methodologies.
• Target Audience: Who reads this journal? Is it primarily for specialists in a niche subfield, or does it aim for a broader academic audience within the humanities? Understanding the audience will subtly – but significantly – shape your writing style, level of assumed knowledge, and the framing of your argument.

Actionable Advice: Create a spreadsheet. List potential journals. For each, note its primary discipline, theoretical leanings, stated scope and aims, and perceived target audience. This initial mapping prevents wasted effort later.

2. Identifying the Right Journal: Strategic Targeting

This is not a shotgun approach. Submitting to the wrong journal is a guaranteed desk rejection and a waste of your time and the editors’ time.

• Deep Dive into Your Bibliography: Examine the footnotes and bibliographies of your own article. Where do the most influential scholars you cite publish? This offers a strong indicator of relevant venues. If you primarily cite articles from Journal of Victorian Culture, then that journal is a strong candidate.
• Peer-Reviewed Literature Scan: Actively search databases (JSTOR, MLA International Bibliography, PhilPapers, etc.) for articles similar to yours. Which journals consistently publish high-quality work in your specific area? Pay attention to the age of these articles; journals evolve.
• Journal Ranking and Reputation (with caution): While “impact factor” is less central in humanities than sciences, some journals hold more prestige than others. Publishing in a top-tier journal can enhance your CV. However, prioritize fit over perceived prestige, especially for early career scholars. A well-placed article in a specialist journal is far better than a rejection from a generalist one.
• Consult Mentors/Colleagues: Experienced scholars in your field have invaluable institutional knowledge. Ask them: “Given my topic on X, which journals would you recommend?” They might suggest journals you hadn’t considered or warn you away from others.

Concrete Example: You’ve written an article analyzing the use of satire in early modern English political pamphlets. Journals to investigate might include Renaissance Quarterly, The Seventeenth Century, Journal of Early Modern Cultural Studies, and potentially Eighteenth-Century Studies (if the pamphlets span that period). You’d then check their “Scope and Aims” to see which explicitly welcomes literary analysis of political texts.

3. Reading the Journal: Imbibing its Cadence and Conventions

You wouldn’t apply for a job without researching the company culture. Similarly, you shouldn’t submit to a journal without immersing yourself in its published work.

• Read Recent Issues: Download and read several articles from the past 1-2 years. Pay attention to:
  • Argumentation Style: Is it direct and assertive, or more exploratory and nuanced?
  • Evidence Handling: How extensively do they quote primary sources? What kind of secondary literature do they engage with?
  • Structure and Flow: Are articles typically structured with clear subheadings? How do authors transition between sections?
  • Length: Are articles typically 7,000 words or closer to 10,000? While word limits are usually stated, the average length of published pieces can be informative.
  • Citation Style: Do they use MLA, Chicago, APA, or a house style? This flags a crucial detail for manuscript preparation.
  • Tone: Is it formal and academic, or does it allow for more evocative language?
• Identify Trends: Are there particular methodological or theoretical trends evident in recent issues? Is the journal publishing more on digital humanities, environmental humanities, or postcolonial studies? Aligning your work with current trends (if genuinely appropriate) can signal its timeliness.

Actionable Advice: As you read, take notes. “Journal X uses Chicago Notes & Bibliography. Articles are typically 8,000 words, highly theoretical, and engage heavily with continental philosophy.” This builds a detailed profile of your target.

4. Manuscript Preparation: Meeting the Technical and Stylistic Demands

Even brilliant research can be undermined by poor presentation. Journal editors are busy; make their job easy.

• Adherence to Guidelines: This is non-negotiable. Every journal has “Author Guidelines” or “Submissions.” These are your commandments. They cover:
  • Word Count: Stick to this +/- 10%. Going significantly over or under is a red flag. If the limit is 9,000 words, don’t submit 12,000.
  • Formatting: Margins, font, line spacing, header/footer requirements.
  • Citation Style: MLA, Chicago (Notes and Bibliography vs. Author-Date), APA. Crucially, ensure every citation, from footnotes to bibliography/works cited, adheres perfectly. Errors here scream “sloppy.” Use citation management software (Zotero, Mendeley) to minimize mistakes.
  • Image/Figure Requirements: Resolution, captioning, permissions. Always secure permissions for copyrighted images before submission.
  • Author Anonymity (Blind Review): Most humanities journals use double-blind peer review. This means your manuscript must be completely anonymized. Remove your name from:
    • The title page.
    • Headers/footers.
    • Acknowledgements (add these after acceptance).
    • Self-citations: Refer to previous work in the third person or as “Author (Year)” / “My Previous Work (Year).” Example: instead of “As I argued in my 2019 article…”, write “As Smith (2019) has argued…” or rephrase to “A previous study argued…”
    • File properties (check metadata and remove author information).
• Refinement of Thesis and Argument:
  • Clarity of Thesis: Is your central argument crystal clear, ideally stated early in the introduction? Avoid burying it.
  • Coherent Structure: Does your argument unfold logically? Are your sections distinct yet interconnected? Use clear topic sentences for paragraphs.
  • Engaging Introduction: Hook the reader. Establish the scholarly significance of your project. Why now? Why this topic?
  • Strong Conclusion: Summarize your findings, reiterate your thesis (in new language), and, crucially, suggest broader implications or avenues for future research. Avoid introducing new information.
  • Originality: Does your article offer a genuinely new interpretation, challenge existing scholarship, or bring new evidence to light? “More of the same” rarely gets accepted.
  • Scholarly Conversation: Your article doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Demonstrate that you’re engaging with, building upon, or critiquing existing scholarship. Show that you know what’s already been said about your topic.

Concrete Example: If Journal of Literary History uses Chicago 17th Edition Notes & Bibliography, you will spend time ensuring every footnote and bibliography entry precisely follows its guidelines, from comma usage to italicization. If they require a 9,000-word limit, you’ll meticulously edit your 10,500-word draft down, focusing on concision and eliminating redundancy, rather than just cutting chunks.

Part 2: The Submission Process – Navigating the Editorial System

Once your manuscript is polished and anonymized, it’s time to engage with the actual submission platform. Most journals use online editorial systems.

1. Registering and Navigating the Online System

Popular systems include Scholastica, Editorial Manager, Open Journal Systems (OJS), and Manuscript Central. While interfaces differ, the underlying logic is similar.

• Create an Account: Use your professional email address.
• Author Dashboard: Familiarize yourself with the dashboard. This is where you’ll track your submission’s progress.
• Walkthrough the Steps: Most systems guide you through a multi-step submission process. Don’t rush; read each prompt carefully.

Actionable Advice: Don’t wait until the last minute to start the submission. If you encounter technical issues, you want time to contact the journal’s editorial assistant for help.

2. Required Documents and Information

Beyond your anonymized manuscript, you’ll typically need to provide several other components.

• Cover Letter: This is a professional letter addressed to the journal editor(s). Do not underestimate its importance.
  • Address: Dr. [Editor’s Last Name] or “The Editors.”
  • Introduction: State the title of your article and that you are submitting it for consideration.
  • Brief Synopsis: A concise, 2-3 sentence summary of your article’s argument and its contribution to the field. Example: “This article, ‘The Unseen Hand: Satire and Pamphleteering in Commonwealth England,’ argues that early modern political pamphlets employed a unique brand of veiled satire, challenging conventional interpretations of censorship and public discourse during the English Civil War. It re-evaluates the role of authorial anonymity in shaping political communication.”
  • Statement of Originality/Exclusivity: Confirm that the article is original, has not been previously published (in whole or in part), and is not currently under consideration elsewhere. This is critical.
  • Ethical Considerations (if applicable): If your research involves human subjects, mention ethical review board approval. While less common in traditional humanities, it’s essential for oral history or some digital humanities projects.
  • Acknowledgements (for the editor’s eyes only): You can briefly mention any grants or institutional support here, but do not include them in the manuscript itself during blind review.
  • Contact Information: Your full name, institutional affiliation, email, and ORCID iD (if you have one – highly recommended).
  • Polite Closing: “Thank you for your time and consideration.”
• Title Page: A separate document containing your article’s title, your name, affiliation, email, ORCID ID. This is kept separate from the anonymized manuscript for blind review.
• Abstract: Typically 150-250 words. This is a standalone summary of your article. It must be compelling and informative, clearly stating your thesis, methodology, key findings, and contribution. Many databases are built on abstracts, so make it work hard.
• Keywords: 3-7 relevant keywords that accurately categorize your work for indexing and searchability. Think broadly and specifically. Example: “Victorian literature,” “imperialism,” “gender studies,” “literary geography,” “Rudyard Kipling.”
• Author Bios (sometimes requested at submission): A brief, 50-75 word bio detailing your current position, research interests, and 1-2 major publications.
• Declarations: Many systems require you to check boxes confirming originality, ethical compliance, financial disclosures, etc. Read these carefully.

Actionable Advice: Draft your cover letter, abstract, and keywords before beginning the online submission process. Have them ready to paste in. Tailor each cover letter to each specific journal – do not use a generic template.

3. Proofreading and Final Checks Before Submission

This is your last chance to catch errors.

• Read Aloud: This helps catch awkward phrasing, typos, and grammatical errors your eyes might skip.
• PDF Conversion: Many systems convert your document to PDF for review. Download and check this converted PDF. Ensure formatting, images, and special characters look correct.
• Anonymity Check (Again!): Use your computer’s search function (Ctrl+F or Cmd+F) to search for your name, institution, or any identifying markers to ensure they are all removed from the manuscript. Check metadata.
• File Naming: Often specified in guidelines (e.g., “Manuscript_Anonymized.docx”, “Cover_Letter.pdf”).
• Double-Check All Uploads: Ensure you’ve uploaded the correct version of each document.

Concrete Example: You’ve submitted. Now, download the auto-generated PDF from the system. On page 3, you spot your last name in a header you forgot to remove. Immediately contact the editorial office to withdraw the flawed submission and resubmit the corrected version. This level of attention saves you from a desk rejection for a preventable error.

Part 3: The Review Process – Patience, Persistence, and Professionalism

Once submitted, your article enters the mysterious realm of peer review. This phase requires patience and a professional demeanor, regardless of the outcome.

1. The Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Your article’s first hurdle is the journal editor(s).

• Initial Screening: Editors quickly assess if the article aligns with the journal’s scope, meets basic quality standards, and adheres to submission guidelines.
• Common Reasons for Desk Rejection:
  • Out of Scope: The most frequent reason. (Hence the importance of Part 1).
  • Poorly Written/Formatted: Immediate red flag. Shows a lack of professionalism.
  • Lack of Originality: Doesn’t contribute new knowledge.
  • Weak Argument/Evidence: The core scholarship isn’t strong enough.
  • Too Long/Too Short: Significantly deviates from word limits without justification.
  • Lack of Anonymity: A quick way to get rejected from blind review journals.

Actionable Advice: A desk rejection is quick. It stings, but it also frees you to submit elsewhere faster. Don’t take it personally; learn from it. If the rejection note offers feedback, internalize it.

2. Peer Review (The “Black Box”)

If it passes desk review, the article is sent to typically two or three external reviewers – scholars in your field. This process can take anywhere from 2 months to over a year.

• Reviewer Role: Reviewers assess the argument’s validity, originality, theoretical sophistication, use of evidence, scholarly contribution, clarity, and adherence to academic conventions.
• Types of Decisions:
  • Accept (Rare without revisions): Straightforward acceptance.
  • Minor Revisions: Accepted contingent on small changes (typos, clarity, minor reframing).
  • Major Revisions: Reworking significant parts (argument, evidence, structure, theoretical framework). This is a strong positive sign, indicating the article has potential.
  • Reject but Resubmit (R&R): Less common, but means the article needs substantial overhaul, but the core idea is valued.
  • Reject: Not suitable for the journal in its current form or at all.

Concrete Example: Your submission status changes from “Under Review” to “Decision Sent.” You open the email: “Major Revisions.” The editor’s letter synthesizes comments from two reviewers. Reviewer A says your theoretical framework could be more explicit. Reviewer B thinks your analysis of one primary source isn’t deep enough. This isn’t a rejection; it’s a guide to making your article better.

3. Responding to Reviewer Feedback: The Art of Revision

This is where many potentially great articles falter. Responding to feedback is a skill.

• Initial Reaction: It’s natural to feel defensive or overwhelmed. Take a day or two to process. Don’t reply immediately.
• Deconstruct the Feedback:
  • Separate the Actionable from the Editorial: Which comments are direct instructions for revision, and which are suggestions or preferences?
  • Identify Overlapping Feedback: If multiple reviewers point out the same issue (e.g., “strengthen your introduction”), that’s a critical area to address.
  • “Disagree” with Evidence and Justification: You aren’t obligated to implement every suggestion. If you believe a reviewer’s suggestion would weaken your argument, respectfully explain why in your response letter. Example: “While Reviewer 2 suggested broadening the scope to include 19th-century authors, I have opted to keep the focus strictly on the early modern period, as a broader scope would dilute the depth of the historical contextualization critical to my argument about X.”
• The Revision Strategy:
  • Address All Comments Systematically: Go through each point, one by one.
  • Prioritize Major Revisions First: Tackle the biggest issues before fine-tuning.
  • Track Changes: Use Track Changes in Word so the editor can easily see your revisions. Turn off comments before saving for submission.
• The Response Letter (Crucial!): This is a detailed, professional letter to the editor (and often shared with reviewers) explaining how you addressed each comment.
  • Start with Gratitude: Thank the editor and reviewers for their time and valuable feedback.
  • Structure: Go point-by-point, either by reviewer or by theme. For each point:
    • Quote or paraphrase the reviewer’s comment.
    • Explain how you addressed it, citing specific page/paragraph numbers in the revised manuscript.
    • Example: “Reviewer 1 suggested I clarify the definition of ‘affect’ as used in my argument (Reviewer 1, Comment #3). I have revised the first paragraph of Section 2 (pp. 5-6) to include a more explicit theoretical grounding for this term, drawing on the work of [Scholar X].”
  • Polite Justification for Unimplemented Suggestions: If you didn’t implement a suggestion, explain why respectfully.
  • Conclude: Reiterate your confidence in the revised manuscript and thank them again.

Actionable Advice: Treat revisions as a collaboration. Reviewers are unpaid volunteers trying to improve scholarship. A thoughtful, comprehensive response letter demonstrates your professionalism and commitment to scholarly rigor.

4. Post-Acceptance: Production and Promotion

Congratulations! Acceptance is a significant milestone. But the work isn’t fully done.

• Proofreading the Proofs: You’ll receive page proofs (a PDF of what the article will look like in print/online). This is your last chance for minor corrections (typos, formatting). Do not rewrite paragraphs or make substantial changes at this stage; it’s expensive and time-consuming.
• Copyright Agreement: You’ll sign a copyright agreement, typically granting the journal first publication rights. Understand its terms regarding self-archiving (Green Open Access) and sharing.
• Promotion:
  • Share with Colleagues: Email friends, mentors, and people citing similar work.
  • Institutional Repository: Upload the appropriate version (often the accepted manuscript, not the final typeset version, depending on copyright) to your university’s open-access repository.
  • Social Media: Announce your publication on academic social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Humanities Commons). Use relevant hashtags.
  • University News/Department Website: Inform your department/university communications office; they may feature your work.
  • Update CV: Add the full citation.

Concrete Example: Your accepted article on “The Rhetoric of Ruins in Romantic Poetry” is finally slated for Volume 45, Issue 2 of Romanticism Quarterly. You receive the proofs. You notice a formatting error in a long footnote – a quote that should be block indented is not. You mark this clearly on the proof. You then craft a tweet: “Thrilled to announce my article ‘The Rhetoric of Ruins in Romantic Poetry’ is forthcoming in @RomanticismQ! Explores how 19thC poets used crumbling structures to reflect societal anxieties about progress and memory. #Romanticism #LitStudies.”

Conclusion: The Long Game of Scholarly Contribution

Submitting to humanities journals is a marathon, not a sprint. It demands intellectual rigor, meticulous attention to detail, strategic patience, and unwavering professionalism. Each rejection is a learning opportunity, and each acceptance is a testament to perseverance and scholarly growth. By mastering the intricate dance of preparation, submission, and revision, you not only increase your chances of publication but also contribute meaningfully to the dynamic, ongoing conversation that defines the humanities. Your research deserves to be read, and by following these steps, you pave the clearest path for it to find its audience.