Revista de Estudios Hispánicos

You are here Home  > Journals >  Revista de Estudios Hispánicos
Item image

Close Comments

Comments (41)

    • I used to recommend this journal to junior colleagues: fast and professional, even if your submission is rejected. Not any more. I sent a text in August and I received a rejection in April. The whole academic year wasted. Thank God I have tenure. The evaluations were vitriolic. I have been rejected before, but not in such a nasty way. I am afraid that a peer-reviewed journal has to be judged by timely answers and its professional evaluators. Both as an evaluator (I have done that for them), as an a potential contributor I am done with them. Yes, you can think this is the comment of a rejected author, but, as I said, there are rejections and rejections. . . and 8 months to reply is borderline criminal in our career.

  1. Their publication decisions seem to be based more on approach than on content, so this journal is best for scholars who take a theoretical stance.

  2. I had an article rejected. The review was a bit unprofessional in its mean spiritedness; the overarching concern was that the article was too theoretical. However, a very fast rejection, and it’s a good journal, publishing good work, so I wouldn’t hesitate to send something again that I thought might stand a better chance (“less theoretical” or in a different subfield).

  3. I had a similar to the one above, except I got a R/R and then a pedantic rejection. It was a quick turn-around, however. I just think I had a reviewer with an ax to grind because the next journal I sent my article to accepted it.

  4. Really good turn around time! I have published two articles with them. They are rigorous about editing (will send you proofs several times). Professional journal with a strong reputation in the field.

  5. Had an article rejected earlier this year (2011). The turn around time from submission to rejection was pretty short.
    The reader’s report was brief, but helpful. I took the recommendations to heart, improved the article, and submitted it elsewhere. It’s now forthcoming.

  6. I submitted an article 3 weeks ago and so have I have not received even an acknowledgement of its arrival. It sounds like this is uncommon for REH.

    • This is unusual, as acknowledgements are sent out immediately via email, except during the summer months and holidays when the staff can be out of town. These are times it’s best to avoid sending submissinos. It looks like this article was sent in the middle of the summer.

  7. My experience with REH was excellent. Submitted an article, and had a very quick turnaround (I think 3 months), telling me that I was accepted with a few revisions. The editorial staff was very thorough with fact checking and copy editing, and the whole experience felt very professional.

  8. I have a high estimation of this journal, which does publish articles of the highest academic calibre. However, can anybody tell me why it is not digitalised? Is an exclusively print version considered a sign of prestige in the United States?

    • They send your manuscript to a second reviewer only if the first reviewer approves it. If the first reviewer rejects your article, they don’t send it to a second reviewer.

  9. I had the same experience – general comments from one reader that were not directly related to my piece.

    My opinion of the journal has diminished somewhat in the recent weeks, especially after I found out that a current colleague and graduate of their PhD program (who hasn’t published a book, let alone a handful of serious articles) routinely refereed articles for REH.

    • The above is inaccurate, as the REH has a very prestigious Editorial Board, consisting only of top scholars in the profession, who review a large majority of submissions. Reviewers outside of the EB are used only when the specialized nature of the topic calls for it.

  10. I found the REH to be very rigorous. My submission went through several revisions (the editor was very patient), but by the time it was accepted it had gotten much better than the original version. To me this is a model case of how academic journals should work, but it is only made possible by reviewers and editors who are at the same time both very demanding and very generous. And of course they have to see promise in the piece to offer this.

  11. While I published in numerous journals of the same caliber, I have never been lucky with REH. What strikes me as odd is that I get rejected within 2-3 days in a categorical fashion without any explanation as to why (I write on Latin America). In fact, now I send them something every year just to see how quickly they write me back with a negative decision and, again, it is never more than within a week.

    • In that case, there must be something seriously lacking, perhaps an inadequate bibliography, or an overly narrows critical scope that makes your essay inappropriate for the journal. Editors are unlikely to send the article out for review if, at first glance, it is clearly inappropriate for the journal to which it’s submitted (granted that there could be some degree of subjectivity in making that determination). You might want to read through the journal more thoroughly to see if, perhaps, your work might not be a good fit for the venue.

  12. I write on Latin America as well, but usually have to wait 3-4 months for the same generic rejection. I routinely send a piece every year to see if things change

  13. De tan lamentable, casi es gracioso lo que sucede con Revista de estudios hispánicos.
    Aquí va mi consejo: ¡Paren de sufrir! Manden sus manuscritos a otras revistas. Mejores, iguales o peores, pero otras.

  14. Estanislao Plasini  |  

    In light of the last few comments, how about a survey for those who have published in REH: How many lances did you break before you managed to penetrate the journal’s thick hide?
    Me: twice.
    And for those who haven’t yet gotten one through, how many lances lie broken at your feet?

  15. I submitted an article about a year ago and they responded within 4 months. The response was mean-spirited and dealt not at all with the substance of my article. The reviewer seemed strangely preoccupied with minor details of my piece. I am taking the article elsewhere.

  16. I review for them, am on editorial board. It is a tough journal to get into, but it does provide rigorous feedback. At least I try to! You have to expect to try a few times to break into a top-tier journal. If your article is sent back after a week, it means it is not good enough even to be sent out to a reviewer. It probably doesn’t even have an adequate bibliography.

    • Oh, really? Back after a week is not good enough…? Thanks for letting everyone know… we must all be stupid we hadnt realize that… Oh, you have to try a few times?… So does that mean they publish depending on how many pieces you have submitted and not the actual quality of the submitted piece…? Thanks very much for your post, I won’t be submitting anything there — if all their reviewers are like you, that must be a pretty bad journal. By the way, very little known in Europe and in Spain.

    • I think you have misunderstood. Each submission is evaluated on its own merits, regardless of whether it is your first or 10th submission. All submissions are refereed anonymously, so there is no way the reviewer is able to know whether this is your first submission or otherwise. Publishing in a top-tier journal is not unlike applying for a major grant like the NEH; if you aren’t successful the first time, take what’s useful from the evaluation and revise your work accordingly. Or, perhaps, the particular article was not a good “fit” for the journal, so you can always try another piece at a later date. Again, the reviewer will not know your identity, so the article will be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of how many times you have submitted.

    • My comment was on the previously comment. Obviously. From REH staff another paternalistic comment as if we were all stupid. I have never submitted anything to REH and very much doubt I ever will. Little known or unknown in Europe and Spain.
      By the way, my first submissions to journals like BHS, Hispanic Review. MLN, MLR or Symposium, amongst others, were all accepted. Bottom line, by the sound of the above member of the scientific cmtee and of REH staff, the journal must be rather bad. Again, only commenting as the posts by people who claim to be associated to the journal are unbelievable

  17. I have sent two articles; the first was rejected almost immediately and the second was published after some revision. The feedback was useful in both cases. The first piece was unconventional; I published it quickly in another journal and it is now very often cited in subsequent criticism, more so than the piece that REH actually accepted.

  18. I received a very brief and mean-spirited rejection from them that included several comments that did not pertain to my article.

  19. I also received mean-spirited comments and a rejection from REH (turnaround time of about 3 months). After stripping the vitriol to get to the useful bits, I was able to revise and submit elsewhere, and the piece was accepted with only minor revisions requested.

  20. REH has a very rigorous review process. The reviewers of my article knew the material intimately and provided excellent feedback, even line-editing my prose. The editor has been professional and firm. REH is quite concerned with bibliography, so make sure it is exhaustive and up to date.

  21. I had a wonderful experience with REH. By the far the best experience I’ve had with any journal. Like others have said they have a very rigorous review process and are very professional. When I first contacted them about my piece they had said it would take 4-6 months for a response; and they kept to it — I think that got back to me at 4 months. They were also very quick to respond to all emails. I only wish other journals were as rigorous and professional.

  22. The first time I submitted an article to the this journal it was accepted with minor revisions, helpful comments, and a quick turnaround. I found them extremely professional. I recommend them without hesitation.

  23. First time publishing with REH. Great experience. Sent the article in the middle of the summer. Got a reply by October. Reader’s opinions differed dramatically from each other. I adressed the observations of the dissenting reader. Got an acceptence by January. Proofs by March. Very quick turn-around, very attentive staff.

  24. Es una excelente revista, pues tuve una muy buena experiencia en el proceso de evaluación y el articulo fue aceptado. Los evaluadores fueron muy profesionales, ya que no solo resaltaron los aspectos positivos del texto, sino que además hicieron buenas recomendaciones para mejorar aquellos elementos con los que no estaban de acuerdo; esto último, especialmente, sucedió con el primer evaluador. El equipo editorial es muy cordial y, tal vez, el único inconveniente es que pueden tardar varios meses en dar una respuesta a pesar de que se comprometan a tener un veredicto en cuatro meses. En general una grata experiencia de donde se aprende mucho.

  25. Great experience with the review process at REH. It took a little longer than I think the journal usually expects (likely because of the summer break) but they were great with correspondence throughout the process. Submitted an article and was told that they generally expect to reach a decision within four months. After four months went by I followed up with the editorial assistant, who told me they were still waiting on the second reviewers’ evaluation. I wrote again a month later and the editorial assistant said the the editor would write me back, which she did shortly thereafter to inform me that both readers had recommended acceptance with minor changes (as a side note, there were mostly bibliographical and I was very impressed with the thoroughness of the suggestions!) I made the changes, sent the manuscript back, and was informed five weeks later that the piece was officially accepted. It is my understanding, from others’ experiences, that REH sends manuscripts to one reviewer at a time; if the first one reader rejects or suggests a revise and resubmit, it goes back to the author for changes. The author can then resubmit. If the first reader recommends an acceptance or conditional acceptance, it goes directly to the second reader. This differs from other journals that send articles out for review to two readers at a time and explains why sometimes it can take a bit longer.

  26. I just had an article appear in REH, and I was more than satisfied with their review and editorial process. (They were probably less satisfied with me!) The reviewers’ suggestions were very thorough and 100% justified: they touched on exactly the sections of my argument that I’d struggled the most with and hadn’t yet gotten right. After the revisions were approved, correcting the proofs was painless, thanks to the in-house editorial team’s professionalism. I’d recommend REH highly to any scholar in the field.

Leave a Comment

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