JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement
JHUP Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found here.
Peer Review Policy
The Wallace Stevens Journal welcomes original work that relates to the writings of Wallace Stevens and is not simultaneously being submitted elsewhere. Submissions can be scholarly essays as well as shorter notes and reflections, interviews, creative work, artwork, poems, reviews, translations, etc. While all materials undergo assessment by one or more members of the Editorial Board, it is the scholarly essays that are subject to a standard double-blind peer review. For nearly all submissions, the Editor and Associate Editors undertake a preliminary screening; in the case of book reviews, this is done together with the Book Review Editor; in the case of poems, it is the Poetry Editor who decides.
Scholarly essays may be of varying length. They are assessed with the usual academic criteria (originality, clarity, theoretical and methodological sophistication, etc.), but the author should bear in mind that assessors are experts who are well versed in the history of Stevens criticism. Submissions should be aware of this history and relate claims to extant scholarship. Authors are advised to acquaint themselves thoroughly in advance with the subjects already discussed in the journal. (The first 35 years are available in open access on the Wallace Stevens Society website, the rest through Project MUSE.) Peer-review reports distinguish among four categories: accept; minor revisions; major revisions; reject. Revised essays are processed by the Editor, though he may opt for renewed peer review. In case of final acceptance, the journal’s production schedule may necessitate an extended wait, as most issues nowadays are special rather than general issues.