Articles should be 7000-9,000 words inclusive of all notes and formatted in line with the most recent edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. All submissions should be wholly anonymous.
It is the author’s responsibility to obtain permissions to reproduce images for an article. While lower-quality images can be submitted for the purpose of review, all images for publication should be a 300 dpi TIFF file. Submissions should be sent to the editors at email@example.com .
The Hopkins Press Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found at the ethics-and-malpractice page.
Cusp peer-reviews will be constructive, understanding that the peer-review process is an essential part of creating the scholarly community we want to be. Article submissions will be read first by one of the editors to determine the article’s suitability for the journal. At this point we are looking to evaluate: a) whether the article will be of interest to Cusp’s readership, b) its scope and originality, c) the quality of the writing. Unsuitable manuscripts will be returned to the author with feedback. Where articles are sent out for peer review, Cusp uses a double-blind peer review system. Your work will be sent to two leading scholars in the field who we ask to provide detailed comments that will help to strengthen the article. The reviewers will make one of four judgements: 1) that the essay be accepted; 2) that the author undertake minor revisions to the satisfaction of the editors; 3) that substantial revisions be undertaken and the article be peer-reviewed again; 4) that the article be declined. These peer reviews will be evaluated by at least one editor to reach a decision on publication. We aim to provide reports and a decision for contributors within three months of initial submission.
Kate Hext, University of Exeter
Kristin Mahoney, Michigan State University
Alex Murray, Queen’s University Belfast
Tanya Agathocleous, Hunter College, CUNY
Kaveh Askari, Michigan State University
Sukanya Banerjee, University of California, Berkeley
Joseph Bristow, University of California, Los Angeles
Susan Cook, Southern New Hampshire University
Joseph Pierce, SUNY Stonybrook
Dennis Denisoff, University of Tulsa
Jennifer DeVere Brody, Stanford University
Stefano Evangelista, Trinity College, University of Oxford
Regenia Gagnier, University of Exeter
Nathan Hensley, Georgetown University
Nicholas Daly, University College Dublin
Joe Kember, University of Exeter
Benjamin Kohlmann, University of Regensburg
Douglas Mao, Johns Hopkins University
Monica L. Miller, Barnard College
Koritha Mitchell, Ohio State University
Nasser Mufti, University of Illinois at Chicago
Robert Stilling, Florida State University
Alison Syme, University of Toronto
Marion Thain, King’s College London
Cusp reviews should be rigorous yet quirky, learned but lively. Their subjects must be focused on the long turn of the twentieth century or either side of 1900.
Reflecting the interdisciplinary character of the journal, we strongly encourage reviews that range beyond the printed page. Cusp review essays should incorporate a number of works and subjects could include any of the following:
Each review should be 2,000 words in length, formatted in accordance with the most recent edition of The Chicago Manual of Style.
We do not accept unsolicited reviews. If you have an idea you would like to develop into a review for Cusp, please provide a short 200-word pitch and brief biography to firstname.lastname@example.org
Hopkins Press Journals