You are here Home  > Journals >  Hispania
Item image

The official journal of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP), invites the submission of original, unpublished manuscripts on language, linguistics, literature, literary criticism, film, culture, cultural studies, applied linguistics, and pedagogy having to do with Spanish and Portuguese. Throughout Hispania‘s history since its founding in 1917, it has published scholarly articles and reviews that are judged to be of interest to specialists in the discipline(s) as well as to a diverse readership of teachers of Spanish and Portuguese


Our address

2100 1st Ave N, Suite 320 Birmingham, AL 35203-4213
35.3075696, -80.72855229999999

Close Comments

Comments (33)

  1. I’ve heard some negative things about this journal in the past, but my experience with Hispania was very positive and professional. Also, they have proofreaders who pay attention to style issues, which is certainly not the case with some other journals. Publishing an article to Hispania, I feel confident that it’s going to get a careful reading both from the peer reviewers and the editorial staff.

  2. My experience was positive and professional. My manuscript was acknowledged within 2 months, and re-writes were accepted within 1 month. It was an impressively quick turn-around.

  3. I had an excellent experience with this journal. I submitted two articles, one got rejected and one accepted. In both cases the feedback was rich and detailed. In both cases I heard back from the journal in two months.

  4. Had an awful experience with this journal a couple of years ago – the editor kept losing my submission, wouldn’t answer queries about said submission, and generally felt very disorganized. I think they’ve changed editors, so I’ll reserve judgment if that’s the case.

  5. A colleague of mine is a reader for this journal, despite not having published anything in her field (Latin American literature) or even having attended a conference in her field for years. I also started a conversation with her once about some of the scholars in her field, and she had no idea who some of the best known (such as Donald Shaw) were. The fact that they have someone like her evaluating their manuscripts makes me seriously question the quality of this journal. They also lost my friend’s manuscript. Sorry. Would never send my stuff there. They are clearly disorganized and do not seek quality scholars (or even scholars in my colleague’s case!) to read your work.

  6. I dispute the last contributor´s thought. I think Hispania is one of the foremost journals in this country, which publishes innovative and high quality work.

  7. Ni es tan mala como dice el penultimo ni tan buena como dice el ultimo anonimo. Es una revista reconocida pero no de gran calidad. Paradojico.

  8. Estoy de acuerdo con el último comentario. Muchos especialistas de reconocida trayectoria han publicado y publican en Hispania. Por otra parte, el proceso de evaluación es lentísimo y la comunicación entre editores y contribuyentes es muy complicada. Espero que los nuevos editores sean más organizados.

  9. This comment regarding “prestigious Hispanists” is a bit naive. Publishing the work of “prestigious Hispanists” is just one of many criteria for assessing the quality of a journal. I concur that it is an important criterion, but it is not the determining factor. Ciber Letras (http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/ciberletras/) is just one example of a journal featuring authors renowned in their respective fields, but few discriminating scholars would consider Ciber Letras a top tier journal. And longetivity, which Hispania certainly boasts, does not signify prestige.

  10. Si un colega me preguntara a cuál de esas dos revistas (Ciber Letras o Hispania) debería enviar su contribución, le recomendaría Hispania. ¿Hay mejores/peores revistas que Hispania? Desde luego.

  11. I concur with the last comment. Ciberletras is an open access journal with what I would regard as poor standards of scholarship. Hispania, on the other hand, has demanding scholarly criteria.

  12. But let’s be clear: “open access” does not mean the journal in question is of lesser quality. This is an unfortunate, ongoing misconception with some in Academia, especially some of the older veterans who continue to insist that paper is better. Complete nonsense.

  13. You´re right, it doesn´t automatically imply lesser standards, but one has to admit that standards vary widely, and it is only very few that can achieve the level of professionalism of journals published by established publishing groups. The acceptance of a journal in Project Muse, which houses Hispania,Hispanic Review and Revista Hispánica Moderna assures a high standard of editing.

    Also, I conceed that “the paper is better” attitude is absolute nonsense. Is that kind of snobbery the reason why so many American journals are available in print only, and not even available on-line to subscribers? Their reluctance to go on-line will prove detrimental, in the long term as it will isolate them from Western European scholars who are used to downloading papers via institutional subscriptions.

  14. Does acceptance in Project Muse really assure a high standard of editing?… Absolutely not. There is no way to assure such standards, regardless of the governing entity’s role, and Project Muse is not set up as a “governing/accrediting” agency that is equipped to ensure effectively high standards after a journal is accepted. Its staff neither has the time or resources for such an endeavor. Editorial teams change for even the most “prestigious” journals, and frequently such changes result in erratic and unacceptable operations (note previous comments above).

    A fine example of the inability of respected organizations to monitor journal operations is the MLA. Once the MLA approves a journal for listing in its directory of periodicals, the journal editor in question is “trusted” to report accurate information for directory listings. And there is no mechanism of the MLA to monitor this information or check on its validity. In other words, when the MLA lists for journal “Y’ that decisions on juried articles are made within two months, this is information reported by the very Editor in question, which the MLA trusts (MLA actually, like Project Muse, does not have the time or resources to validate such reports). Conflict of interest? Absolutely. And I myself have learned that the information reported is often inaccurate: instead of a two month decision, for example, the decision time is actually 6-8 months. Of course, showing “two months” on the listing is much more positive than telling the truth, but unfortunately many of our colleagues are not aware of this and trust the information on the MLA Guide to Periodicals.

    The comment regarding “American journals” is a very astute one, in my view. And this I say as a U.S. scholar myself. I am hopeful that all journals eventually move to on-line subscriptions. It is necessary, and I agree with my colleague’s related observations above.

  15. We´ll have to agree to differ about Hispania and Project Muse Editing standards.

    In regard to the inaccuracy of the MLA periodicals listing, I´d say it´s just one of the multiple differences between myth or rhetoric and reality in academia. A more serious one is professors continually assuring their graduate students that jobs are plentiful.

  16. Very positive experience; received very helpful comments within three months of submission; was notified of acceptance of the revised text within two months; the style check was carefully done; the final version appeared within the year.

  17. El contacto con el editor es muy bueno, el tiempo es más o menos razonable: entre 4 y 5 meses.
    Eso sí, no todos los lectores son expertos (a mí se me envió una invitación para revisar un manuscrito que tenía poco que ver con mi campo, y desde luego, rechace la invitación). No me parece justo que una persona inexperta revice el texto de alguien que ha trabajado arduamente. He de agregar que aún soy estudiante y me enviaron el manuscrito de cualquier forma. Me parece que Hispania no se preocupa por tener la certidumbre de que los lectores sean expertos. Tengo una amiga que desde hace un par de años revisa manuscritos a pesar de que apenas ha completado una maestría. Tener en cuenta esto.

  18. I had two experiences with Hispania. One – a couple of years ago, with different Editor-in-Chief. My submission was lost. After a year I found that out. But it wasn’t the worst. When I inquired about its status, the editor repeatedly sent me a message written entirely in ALL CAPS with plenty of exclamation points and cc’d it to another editor of Hispania. I wish I could share it with everyone here. Of course, I still have it. I thought of reporting it somewhere because this editor was/is famous and respected in the field. Needless to say, I was outraged.

    My second, recent, experience has been excellent. Very quick response, excellent, thoughtful feedback, and an acceptance. But I wouldn’t mind rejection if it were to be delivered in an equally fast and respectful fashion.

  19. Journal management is everything, as we all know. The current editorial staff with Spaine-Long and Wiseman was efficient, professional and reasonable with the handling of my article. Although _Hispania_ uses a sophisticated software program to handle submissions, the ed staff intervenes effectively to iron out any techno-wrinkles that emerge. And given the volume of submissions received, it is impressive how well the editors manage the process. My article originally received a verdict of “revise and re-submit,” requiring extensive revisions that I implemented conscientiously, and my study was ultimately accepted. _Hispania_ has consistently enjoyed a very solid reputation in the field, and the current editors have done very well in bolstering this fine reputation. This is a journal I highly recommend to young and veteran scholars alike for publishing their work, and I will continue to do so unless there is a bad change in management.

  20. In response to some of the comments here, it is important to note that there was a change of editorship in 2010, which might explain some of the “road bumps” experienced during that transition time. Sheri Spaine Long became Editor in 2010, replacing Janet Pérez who stepped down in 2009 after heading the journal for 8 years (2001-09). And as the previous entry observes, and with which I agree: “Journal management is everything.” A related note: the journal _Monographic Review_, for which Janet Pérez is a founding editor, announced just last fall that it will cease to exist. See http://www.monographicreview.org/index.html.

  21. My interactions w/ the editorial staff at Hispania have been great. Both Sheri Spaine Long and Jennifer Brady were attentive to my emails. The submission to publication turn around time was almost 18 months, which seemed to be more about a) finding a suitable external reviewer and b) waiting on other academics to get to my manuscript. Jennifer Brady (I mostly worked with her) was always courteous and quick to respond. If I don’t mind the wait, I’d be happy to submit to them in the future.

  22. I have nothing but good things to say about publishing in this journal. What it sometimes lacks in intellectual rigor, it makes up for in politeness and efficiency at the managing level. My time to R&R was less than 4 months and the reviewer comments were helpful and on point. This helped me turn it around quickly. Overall, it will be around 1 year to publication, which is impressive these days.

  23. I had a very good experience with Hispania. I submitted an article and got very good, detailed feedback on it that helped me improve it. I was asked to send in a second revision, and this second time around really strengthened the article. The process was very easy and the editor and reviewers were timely. The reviewers that read my submission were very rigorous in their critique, I’m really happy with how my final article came out.

  24. I too have only positive things to say about my recent experience with Hispania. The online submission and review process has been efficient and well organized. The original review of the article took less than 4 months and the comments I received were rigorous, helpful and detailed. Both reviewers were familiar with the primary work (not the most well known) and clearly had extensive knowledge in the field. The editorial staff also has been prompt and responsive throughout the process. I would highly recommend this venue to new and seasoned scholars alike.

  25. I had a good experience with this journal even though they didn’t publish my piece. I submitted in May and received a rejection in August. The comments/criticism were fair overall and highly detailed, which greatly helped me improve the paper. I lament that they do not accept re-submissions as I felt I was able to address the readers’ concerns, but appreciate that they give good feedback, fairly quickly, for pieces they choose not to publish.

  26. It is a well known journal, one that is recognized by peers. But my experience has not been great. I submitted the article in May 2017 and did not get a decision back until Feb 2018 after I had emailed different editors for two months asking for a status update. I submitted my revisions within a month and waited until Oct 2018 to hear back that the article was accepted. I’ve only heard “We’ll get back to you” since it was accepted in October. On top of this, I submitted a different article to a different journal the same week I submitted this one; IMO that journal is more prestigious than Hispania. That article was published before I ever heard back about this one. If I had it all to do over again, I’d submit elsewhere and don’t plan on ever submitting to Hispania again. But I’m going to wait it out with this article since I’ve already spent this long on the process.

  27. I, too, had a very positive experience with this journal: helpful feedback from reviewers; reasonable turnaround time; responsiveness from editors/staff; etc. Would recommend.

  28. Had a great experience with Hispania recently. Submitted my article a couple of months ago and the turnaround was pretty quick. They rejected my article but gave me excellent feedback and also emphasized the promise of my work. I recommend working with them.

  29. Eva Copeland  |  

    I have also had a very positive experience: I submitted in Dec and received an accept pending minor revisions in Feb. The reviewers comments were very helpful and made my essay much stronger.

  30. Very positive experience. Received an accept with minor revisions two months after I submitted my essay. The reviewers’ comments were very helpful and detailed, and made my essay stronger.

Leave a Comment

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