JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement
JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.
Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Women’s History relies on individual or co-authored submissions for most of its articles. That is, the editors infrequently organize special issues where we as editors or through a guest editor solicit contributions. In the main, all articles need to meet our stringent double blind peer review process, with the final decision at the editors’ discretion. Each assigned editor chooses two experts in the particular field, who are asked to rank the article along five criteria: quality of research, quality of analysis, clarity of writing style (we encourage and work with non-native English speaking authors), originality and the significance of the article’s contribution to the international and transnational dimensions of women’s and gender history. In addition, reviewers write up a more elaborate set of detailed suggestions for revision available to the author (and can append a separate statement for the editor’s eyes alone). In this way, Journal practice encourages transnational and comparative histories consistent with the evidence. In the absence of a comparative dimension, however, authors are encouraged to make explicit the innovative methodology of the contribution. In addition, article arguments must be set in the relevant historiography to demonstrate the interpretive originality of the work.
Articles initially are checked by the Journal’s Managing Editors (more advanced Ph.D. students in the History Department) for word length and proper style. All decisions are made by editors of the JWH, including the decision not send the article out for formal review. If the article is sent out for review, authors typically are asked to revise and re-submit, on average two times. This revision process helps insure the highest quality research and writing by the authors. We usually consult several different specialists in the field for the revisions. Typically, it takes between a year and nearly two years from original submission to acceptance. Special sections in an issue (such as the upcoming short essays offering critical perspectives on the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment) or book review forums rely on the editorial skills of the organizer and are not subject to the formal peer review process.