Revista Hispánica Moderna

You are here Home  > Journals >  Revista Hispánica Moderna
Item image

Founded in 1934 as Boletín del Instituto de las Españas at Columbia University, Revista Hispánica Moderna has been regarded since as one of the most distinguished international venues for academic research in Spanish. RHM is a semiannual peer-reviewed journal committed to the dissemination of outstanding scholarship on Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian literary and cultural studies. It publishes essays and book reviews in Spanish, English, or Portuguese on the full spectrum of Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian cultural production in Europe, Latin America, and the United States, and in all historical periods, from the Middle Ages to the present.

http://rhm.pennpress.org/


Our address

Address:
Columbia University 612 West 116th Street New York, NY 10027
GPS:
40.80818300000001, -73.965055

Close Comments

Comments (18)

  1. The positive: speedy turn around
    The negative: won’t give any helpful feedback if they reject you.

    I submitted something there last year and got a response within a month or two. Unfortunately, it was a rejection. I do not mind the rejection, but when I asked for comments on the article/reasons for the rejection the editor said that it was not their editorial policy to share their reasons for rejecting it. I don’t think I will send something there again until they change that policy. I don’t want to spend months working on an article without any feedback from the journal after sending it.

  2. I had the same experience as Christine; I did hear back within a month or so that my article was rejected, but again, no feedback. Even something as basic as “your topic is not our interest right now” would have been helpful.

  3. I had an excellent experience with this journal. I submitted an article in September, and received an acceptance (contingent on some revisions) in mid-November. The two reader’s reports were extremely thorough and helpful, and the communication from the Managing Editor throughout the process was excellent. The proofreading and copyediting were also extremely good. This is one of the best journals around.

  4. My experience was negative, too. After six months without news, I sent a couple of status requests. Eventually, an assistant sent me a rejection email with an explanation along the lines of “sometimes we can share reviewer’s comments, sometimes we can’t”. Their whole approach seems lacking in courtesy and professionalism.

  5. Publiqué un artículo en esta revista. Se tardaron unos ocho meses en responderme. Los comentarios de los evaluadores fueron pertinentes y muy detallados. El tiempo de espera entre la aceptación y la publicación del artículo fue de un año.
    Esta es una revista que goza de prestigio en el campo de los estudios hispánicos y, sin duda, se ocupan de preservar la calidad de las contribuciones.

  6. In my experience with this journal, they do not send the reviewers’ comments or any kind of explanation why they rejected my essays. This happened to me twice and is a sign of unprofessionalism.

  7. They publish one of my worst articles when I was 26 or 27. Fifteen years on, I send them a really good article and they, surprisingly, reject it. No feedback, nothing.
    There are many better journals. I won’t be submitting anything else to them

  8. They only care about canonical authors and will not publish any article related to “minor” authors. Also, they mostly publish about Latin American literature

  9. the managing editor is very helpful and timely with responses but i found it somewhat shocking that the journal offers no comments/rationale when rejecting a piece.

  10. I had a similar experience as most of the above commenters. They were fast to reject my piece, which I certainly appreciated, but offered no reviewer comments at all. It’s kind of a useless process compared to the other venues that offer at least some comments with a rejection, and leaves one with the impression that they really don’t care much about making a contribution to scholarship. I’ve served as an outside evaluator for several reviews now, but I’ve decided to only do so for those reviews that provide some feedback with rejections.

  11. Bad experience with this journal. I reckon there must be some hidden elitism here and an overall rejection of more theoretical approaches. I got my article rejected in a week with no explanations or suggestions. The editor was not helpful. I sent it somewhere else and after a few revisions it has been accepted for publication. I totally agree with the poster above. They just don’t care.

  12. My experience with RHM was wonderful. I submitted my piece in February, received readers’ comments 2 months later, returned the edited version 1 month later, and the article was officially accepted 3 weeks after that. Since this journal is only published twice a year, it may take a bit for the article to be published. The best experience I’ve had working with any journal/editor.

  13. Mi experiencia con la revista ha sido muy buena. Envié el artículo a fines de febrero y a las pocas horas me contestó el editor explicándome cómo sería el proceso de revisión. A los dos meses recibí comentarios de un consultant reader, especialista en el tema que trataba en el artículo. Tomé en consideración cada uno de estos comentarios y envié una nueva versión al mes siguiente. Un mes después, ya habían aceptado el artículo con unas pequeñas correcciones que entregué al mes siguiente. En total, fueron seis meses. Sé que la publicación demorará un poco, pero eso es porque se trata de una revista semianual. Lo mejor de todo fue la comunicación con el editor, quien fue muy claro y me ayudó mucho en todo el proceso.

  14. I had a great experience with this journal back in 2012. They accepted my article and asked for very minor revisions. They were easy to work with and very helpful through the revision process. Previous posters have discussed being rejected after a month without comments. My understanding of their process is the following: within one month, they review submissions to see if they are a good fit for the journal. If they are, submissions are sent on to readers. If they are not, they let you know within a month. I think this two-tiered review system is elegant as it allows you to move on rather than remaining in limbo when your article is not a good fit. I found RHM to be efficient, professional, and organized.

Leave a Comment

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