Bulletin of Spanish Studies

You are here Home  > Journals >  Bulletin of Spanish Studies
Item image
Founded at Liverpool in 1923 by the influential British Hispanist E. Allison Peers, the Bulletin of Spanish Studies is a learned review dedicated to research into the languages, literatures, histories and civilizations of Spain, Portugal and Latin America. Also known as the Bulletin of Hispanic Studies (1949–2001), the Bulletin of Spanish Studies soon established an international reputation, and is now recognised world wide as one of the front-ranking journals in the field of Hispanic scholarship.

The Bulletin ’s editors have included E. Allison Peers, founder-editor, Albert Sloman, Geoffrey Ribbans, Harold Hall, Dorothy S. Severin, Ann L. Mackenzie, C. A. Longhurst, James Whiston and Jeremy Robbins. An international committee of Hispanists, set up in 1949, has functioned continuously since that date to advise the Editors of the Bulletin . In 1995 the Bulletin relocated to the University of Glasgow, which is its present editorial and publishing base.

The Bulletin , which had last modified its title in 1949, reverted from Volume LXXIX, 2002 to its original title: Bulletin of Spanish Studies , without loss of editorial continuity, volume-numbering, or breadth of coverage. As its subtitle confirms, the Bulletin continues to publish ‘Hispanic Studies and Researches on Spain, Portugal and Latin America’.

Between 1923-1997, the Bulletin was published as a quarterly; then in 1998 it expanded to 5 issues annually; and in 2002, to coincide with the Bulletin ’sreversion to its original title, another increase, to 6 issues per volume-year, plus supplement, was implemented. In 2004 the Bulletinfurther expanded in size and frequency, and now publishes 8 issues per year ; these 8 issues may include up to 3 special numbers or book-length Hispanic publications. This further expansion enables the Bulletin to publish more research articles and reviews every year, as well as longer works of reference and criticism, and ensures their prompt availability to scholars.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/14753820.html


Our address

Address:
University of Glasgow Glasgow, G12 8QQ Scotland
GPS:
55.87212109999999, -4.288200500000016

Close Comments

Comments (19)

  1. Lucas Lucatero  |  

    Speedy return, with a few helpful commentaries. However, the reviewer entirely missed the point and was a tad pedantic and paternalistic. The paper was not reviewed by two persons as the journal claims, but since the editor said she mostly “agreed” with the reviewer, I presume that counts for two.

    The journal veers towards philology, literary history, and “commentaire du texte”. My bad for not having researched better its approach. Other than some structuralism and semiotics in its earlier formulations, the journal is weak in theory. I’d advise against sending anything heavy with theory, cultural criticism, or interdisciplinary approaches.

    Accepts long papers, which is good for papers with heavy research / documentation.

  2. I had the exact same experience you describe in your first lines. I did have to request that they send me the reviewers’ comments, and they did so after two weeks. My article was on the theory side–not fully though.

  3. My experience with this journal has been quite strange. They have contacted me twice inviting me to review books. In both instances I have declined politely, explaining the book was too bad or I was too busy. They didn’t even reply to thank me. The first time this happened I thought they would never contacted me again, but they do a second time.
    I think when the journal started in the late 1990s it was very promising. However, with 8 (or more?) issues per year, many articles are very bad.
    I wouldn’t send anything there.

  4. Very positive experience with this journal. The initial decision took about 4 months. They accepted my essay with some revisions, and the requested revisions were clearly expressed to me. The editing process was smooth, much of it conducted online. Time between acceptance and publication was about one year. I received 50 offprints (copies) of my article, which seems quite generous, as well as a copy of the volume in which the piece was published. I would submit here again quite happily.

  5. i’m confused about whether this journal and the Bulletin of Hispanic Studies are related or the same. Anybody knows something about it, please?

  6. I had a two-month turn around, and some very helpful comments (along with an acceptance). My article was not heavy in theory, so I cannot confirm or deny the other comments about their dislike of overly theoretical manuscripts.

  7. BHS or BSS? Bulletin of Hispanic Studies (Liverpool) is the original journal. BSS was created by a former editor of BSS who decided she wanted to “keep” the journal and take it to Glasgow. BHS still remains, outside the UK, the ONLY Bulletin, and BSS is very much unknown.

  8. I agree with the above commentary. The Bulletin was created by E.A. Peers in the 1920’s. The editors in the 1990’s were Prof Severin (the top Hispanist in the UK) and someone else. This someone else moved to Glasgow and decided that she would “take” the Bulletin to Glasgow. For a few years there were two Bulletins, with the same title and the same cover. THe case went to court and the judge ruled that the Glasgow Bulletin would be called the Bulletin of Spanish Studies (the original title of the journal) and the Liverpool journal would continue to be called Bulletin of Hispanic Studies. If you grab a copy of BSS you will read they claim to be the original journal. THe truth is hardly anyone outside the UK knows about the BSS. Liverpool has retained the reputation of high quality. But I don’t think BSS is all that bad.

  9. En 2012 tuve una experiencia negativa con esta revista y, como no creo que haya mejorado mucho en estos meses, la desaconsejo plenamente.
    El email que recibí rechazando mi artículo fue enviado poco después de mandar yo mi propuesta. Por este motivo y por el contenido del correo electrónico veo claro que ni se han molestado en leer mi contribución, lo cual me parece una falta de respeto y de profesionalidad.
    En primer lugar, solamente se habla de un revisor (cualquier revista mínimamente decente tiene dos) y, en segundo, no se me ha enviado ningún feedback. Lo único que se decía en el cuerpo del email era que las conclusiones no estaban lo suficientemente demostradas de acuerdo con la persona que teóricamente leyó el artículo.
    Sin duda, es mejor y más serio el BHS (solo la página web ya dice bastante).

  10. Just like the previous commenter, I got the distinct impression that rather than an editorial board, only the General Editor read my article. Why even have an editorial board if you’re not passing the article on to be read & evaluated?

  11. Many of these comments are unfounded. The Bulletin of Spanish Studies has been going from strength to strength.
    It’s one of the few journals that has a following, and contributions from, Spanish, British and North American academics. It really is one of the top international journals.

  12. To the July 10 commenter: most, if not all, journals subject every submission to a pre-review reading to see if it is suitable enough to send out to the blind reviewers on their board. It is not possible to send out every submission. One is fortunate if the pre-review has been done by the General Editor. Often it is a graduate student assistant to the journal who does this first reading!

  13. “Often it is a graduate student assistant to the journal who does this first reading”? How often? Please DO tell us more about your process Anonymous on November 19, 1:16 pm?

  14. From submission to rejection I had a speed experience. The day after submission I was contacted by one of the Associate Editors to inform me that the document had been received and that the review process would take approximately two months. The review came back in just over a month, and while I agree with the criticism of the reviewer, the outright rejection of the submission seemed a bit extreme. The tacky-tacky holes that were found in the underlying argument of the paper could have been easily fixed within a week with the rewording of a few phrases. Overall, the experience was efficient and cordial, but the review process needs to allow more room for error and correction.

  15. Esta revista no es seria. El mismo día que mandé un artículo me contestaron que no se adecuaba a lo que buscaban, a pesar de tratarse de un trabajo sobre poesía de Siglo de Oro, que me aceptaron posteriormente en una revista mejor. No recibí ningún feedback ni más explicaciones que ese par de líneas.
    Sé por colegas que, cuando hay dinero de por medio, son menos estrictos, pero, gracias a Dios, no he tenido que recurrir a esos medios para publicar mi trabajo.

  16. esta revista ha mejorado mucho desde que la ha cogido Isabel Torres. Con Jeremy Robbins era un auténtico desastre. El tal Robbins me pidió a mí dos informes. El primero era un buen artículo y recomendé enfáticamente su publicación. Jamás salió. El segundo era de lo peor que he leído y así lo expresé en mi informe. Pues este lo publicaron. Cuando pregunté a robbins qué había pasado con el primero de estos, me dijo que no había recibido mi informe. Y gracias que responde, porque su costumbre era no responder. Un auténtico desastre. Con Torres parece que la cosa va mejor. Pero la calidad es tan baja, que ya no hay quien lo levante

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*