Decimonónica

You are here Home  > Journals >  Decimonónica
Item image

Decimonónica — an on-line, refereed, international journal which highlights the cultural production of the nineteenth-century Hispanic world and publishes two editions per year (Winter and Summer) — invites scholarly submissions from a literary or cultural studies perspective, with a focus on Latin America or Spain.

http://www.decimononica.org


Our address

Address:
Utah State University Logan, UT 84322
GPS:
41.745161, -111.80974249999997

Close Comments

Comments (12)

  1. I have had a great experience with them. They pride themselves in getting back to you within 6 weeks (and they comply with that promise, even in the summer). I also got great feedback. The editorial board is composed of several experts in 19th-century literature, which makes the feedback that much more meaningful, IMHO.

  2. I also had a great experience with this journal. They responded to my submission with a R&R after eight weeks. They gave me one month to complete the revisions and resubmit the work. (I actually appreciated this since it kept me on task.)
    Both readers’ comments were helpful and specific. One reader was also incredibly detailed in his/her feedback, which made for a much better final version. A day after resubmitting the work I got the thumbs-up. (It’s now forthcoming.)

  3. An open access journal that ranks among the best (both traditional paper and digital) in the field, in my view. Impressive Editorial Board, very responsible Editors, great turn-around time on the review of articles (6 weeks or less), efficient operations. The editors truly take their responsibility seriously, and they seem to understand that their work impacts our junior colleagues’ livelihood. Kudos!

  4. I also had a great experience with Decimononica. It took only a few weeks to receive an acceptance from them, and the editors were cordial and helpful. My article was published around one year after it was accepted.

  5. I had a great experience. My article was accepted pending revisions. It came out in 2010. I received a lot of helpful comments. However, one one of the editor´s comments were borderline i.e. ones that reminded me how hard they had to work to review my paper. The comment made me feel like they were doing me a huge favor just for accepting my undeserving piece. In the end…I would definitely try to publish here in the future. The publication ended up in much better shape and I felt proud of it.

  6. Very happy with my experience. The editorial board is top notch, and I received a (positive) response very quickly. More journals should jettison the slow, dated and expensive print format and embrace the online-experience. There is no reason why a serious, peer-reviewed online journal cannot have the same rigor and standards as a printed journal- Decimononica proves this.

  7. I had a terrific experience. I found the editor to be extremely thoughtful in sending along updates and relaying the reviewers’ comments. I received fair and detailed comments from three readers along with a provisional acceptance pending revisions. The peer-review process would be a dream if all journals functioned this professionally.

  8. I echo the positive comments. Turn-around was quick. My article was accepted after very few revisions. I appreciated the quick and clear communications throughout the process. As a junior faculty member I highly recommend Decimonónica. If only all publishing experiences were like this.

  9. I also had a great experience with this journal, and highly recommend it. I submitted my article around February/March and received excellent feedback from two readers almost exactly 6 weeks later. The readers’ comments improved the paper significantly, and this definitely shows in the version that was published in the journal about four months later. After resubmission, I was notified after a couple of days that the article had been accepted, as only one of the readers needed to look at it again (initially, one reader seemed to approve the paper as it was, with minor revisions, whereas the second reader required more substantial revisions). I really appreciated the speed of the process, the high quality and thoughtfulness of the readers’ comments, and the excellent communication with the editor.

  10. Excelente comunicación con el representante de la revista.

    Comentarios críticos pero constructivos (¡cómo debe ser!, ¿no?).

    Tiempo de espera sensato lo que equivale ya de entrada a un respeto y consideración hacia la persona que envía su trabajo. Sabemos cómo se siente uno cuando envía algo y se le apodera un sentimiento que rememora al Larra más crítico:

    -Escríbame usted mañana -nos respondió el director de la revista-, porque el evaluador no se ha levantado todavía.
    -Escríbame usted mañana -nos dijo al siguiente día-, porque el evaluador acaba de salir.
    -Escríbame usted mañana -nos respondió al otro-, porque el evaluador está durmiendo la siesta.
    …….

    No es al menos mi experiencia con Decimonónica. En mi caso tuve que esperar pocas semanas.

    Cuenta además con un prestigioso plantel de investigadores. En fin, totalmente recomendable.

  11. I submitted my article more than a year ago but since I found the comments on this site helpful I thought I should give my feedback: I had a great experience. They were fairly quick and gave thoughtful comments and accepted my submission. The editor was great to work with – he replied promptly to emails and was very helpful. Also, my institution required some date regarding rate of acceptance, etc. and, although the website did not provide this information, the editor gave me very detailed information. Great experience overall!

  12. Todo lo que han dicho los compañeros es cierto. El equipo administrativo es serio y eficiente y responden con rapidez. Nada me gustaría más que poder decir lo mismo de los evaluadores. Recibí tan sólo una devolución de mi trabajo y era un verdadero desastre. Las razones por las que se rechazaba el texto estaban en relación con las referencias usadas en el mismo (ejemplo: resulta poco productivo y cuestionable realizar un paralelismo entre X y Z como hace el artículo, la pega es que no lo hacía mi artículo, sino una de las referencias citadas), también se cuestionaba el hecho de que el texto rebatiera puntos de los anteriores estudios sobre el tema (salvo que el texto estaba hablando de la novela que servía como base para el texto y no sobre los estudios), y así una y otra vez. La evaluación lamentaba que no se hubiera manejado una bibliografía determinada que estaba citada en el texto. En fin, con evaluadores así uno puede hacerse una idea bastante cabal del estado de los estudios sobre el siglo XIX en los Estados Unidos…

Leave a Comment

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