As one who is new in the field, two overlapping matters that continue to be of interest to me are the ranking of academic journals and the related (though certainly not identical) question of where one should consider submitting his/her work for publication. This topic seems to come to my mind every winter once the major biblical studies conferences have come and gone, and I begin to think more seriously about if and where to send my own work for consideration. I’ve read several interesting blog posts over the years that attempt an informal ranking of journals according to discipline (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here); these normally try to provide some kind of corrective to the available published ranking lists (e.g., ERIH, ERA). Of course the results of all lists are subjective and open to scrutiny since there are so many factors involved. It is therefore not my intent with this post to advance my own informal (and untrustworthy!) ranking of biblical studies journals. But I wish to comment on and elicit responses about one factor which gets too little air time in these discussions yet should be seriously considered by those submitting papers to journals: the length of the review process. This should be a concern especially for young scholars who are or will be looking for employment or promotion and wish to have their would-be articles accepted or even printed prior to the submission of their applications and CV.
What is particularly striking to me is that some of the more “prestigious” journals have a significantly faster turnaround than others, faster even than journals in which it is perhaps slightly less desirable to publish one’s work. Let me give an example. At present, I have had papers accepted by four different journals: NTS (2x), JSNT, JBL, and CBQ. Now, in my estimation, these are four excellent journals in the field of New Testament studies, not only because of the quality of the work that typically appears in them, but because of the wide-spread readership they receive, especially in the English-speaking world. But what is equally impressive to me about these journals is the relative speed with which they were able to arrive at a decision regarding my submission. In the case of NTS, I received notice of acceptance within about six weeks for my first piece and about eight weeks for the second (admittedly, the editor [John Barclay] was my doctoral supervisor and he was already familiar with my work prior to the review process. Even so, I believe he aims for an eight-week turnaround for every submission). In the case of JSNT, I heard back from Simon Gathercole in about eight weeks. Slightly less impressive is JBL: I received notice from James Vanderkam in about five months. And the same goes for CBQ: I have just received today the good news of acceptance from Linda Day after six months. Again, the (relative) brevity of the review process for some of these journals (esp. NTS and JSNT) is quite impressive considering how competitive I assume them to be. Moreover, when these rather good experiences are contrasted with that I had with another journal, each of those four look even better. What I mean is that I originally submitted my CBQ article to NovT, another very good (though by no means unrivaled) New Testament journal, which took no less than ten months to review. And seeing as it is now to appear in CBQ, you can guess what the response was. To be fair, the original reviewer provided some very useful feedback and requested a resubmit (the editor even told me at that time it was “accepted in principle”). But after I made all the suggested corrections and resubmitted the piece, it was rejected after another six month review and without any explanation. All this to say, (and I mean no disrespect to the editors) I have no plans ever again to submit anything to NovT. And if timing is an issue (as it often is for pups like me!), it is extremely important when deciding where to send one’s work to weigh “prestige” and other important factors with the often overlooked matter of the length of a journal’s review process. In fact, it is no wonder that NTS is at the top of everybody’s ranking: with a two month turnaround, together with all its other favorable qualities, it seems to be the most attractive option in most every way.
Due to this concern, I thought it might be beneficial to write up an informal list of the most significant biblical studies journals and provide the length of their respective review process, so prospective authors can make more informed decisions about where to submit their work. Just to be clear, this does not intend to rank journals based on subjective qualities. Neither does this provide information regarding how long it will take for an accepted piece to appear in print (that is an entirely different matter). My only concern here is on roughly how long it takes to receive a decision from a journal editor once an article has been submitted for review. I am happy to include (in principle) any journal title related to biblical studies (Old or New Testament, post-biblical period, etc.) and a range of weeks and months if differing estimates are provided. So please do share your experiences if you’d like to contribute.
Biblica (6 months from submission to print) Biblical Interpretation Biblical Theology Bulletin Bibliotheca Sacra Bulletin for Biblical Research Catholic Biblical Quarterly (3-6 months) Currents in Biblical Research Early Christianity Harvard Theological Review (12 months) Horizons in Biblical Theology Interpretation Irish Biblical Studies Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters (2 months) Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of the New Testament (2 months) Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (6 months from submission to print) Journal of Biblical Literature (3-5 months) Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Jewish Studies (12 months) Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Theological Interpretation Journal of Theological Studies Neotestamentica New Testament Studies (2-4 months) Novum Testamentum (3 months, 6 months, or even 10 months!) Perspectives in Religious Studies Revue biblique Scottish Journal of Theology Trinity Journal Tyndale Bulletin Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche
Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 10:54 pm
I recently had the opposite experience. NTS took several weeks over their stated three month time-period to get back to me, whereas NovT responded within two months.
Friday, 11 November 2011 at 2:05 pm
Thanks, Don. I am struck how journals can provide such different experiences for different submissions. I’ll integrate what you say into the list.
Friday, 11 November 2011 at 1:46 pm
I have had a variety of experiences. I just had a piece in CBQ. IT was accepted within about 3 months, but took 18 months to publish. I once waited close to a year to hear anything from HTR. Biblica was very quick on both ends. So quick in fact that I wondered about the process. NovT took a while to tell me of the decision, but then I found out later the editor had been very ill. I also had to wait close to a year for JJS. It got to the point that I emailed them a few times over several months. I finally got a negative answer that was clearly the opinion of one person. I published that article in CBQ. Another quick turn around was JSP.
All in all, I think some journals are run better than others. The editors are certainly swamped with more submissions than they can publish and/or read in a timely manner. But at times the wait seems excessive. I think that as we move more and more to electronic format the backlog will begin disappear.
Friday, 11 November 2011 at 2:04 pm
Thanks for this, John. I will post your experiences above, indicating 12 months for those you say took “close to a year” (unless you want to clarify). When you say a quick turn around for Biblica and JSP, about how long do you mean? And why do you believe the electronic format will speed the review process?
Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 3:53 am
Any word on what the intended turn around is to be for the new Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters.
Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 12:05 pm
I’ve asked Nijay Gupta to comment on this; hopefully he will do so soon.
Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 3:25 pm
I think it is true that some journals are run more smoothly than others. I usually have to wait about 3 months, though once in a while significantly longer and occasionally shorter.
As for the Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters, we try to do about two months, though things do come up for the editorial board like medical issues. Do remember that things tend to slow down at the beginning of the school year and also at Christmas time.
I make it a habit of asking initially how long the review process is going to take whenever I submit an article. Then, a week past that time, I contact the editor and politely ask for an update.
Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 5:30 pm
John,
If my memory is correct, it took about six months from submission to print for Biblical and JSP.
As far as electronic, I can see us moving to a Wiki editorial system where the editors can access the document online without having to send it back and forth. Also, this might allow for more readers to participate, meaning that a submission might not be turned down as quickly if you have an overly tired editor or, god forbid, one who is protecting turf. I read about a journal for Elizabethan studies that is using this format and I was impressed.
JB
Monday, 14 November 2011 at 8:49 pm
John,
I had a slightly different experience with JBL. I heard back within 3 months of my original submission and was asked to do some revision. Then, I heard that it was accepted within 1 month of my resubmission.
Ben J.
Monday, 14 November 2011 at 9:40 pm
Ben,
Thanks, I’ve adjusted my original note to reflect your experience.
John
Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 8:03 pm
[...] [Journals] John Goodrich (Dunelm Road) discusses the length of time it takes various biblical studies journals to accept articles for publication. [...]
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 at 3:40 pm
How common is it not to receive any reader’s report or explanation?
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 at 4:02 pm
Most of what I know is from personal experience. I have received feedback for every one of my article submissions except following the occasion when I was asked to resubmit. Still, with that journal I received significant feedback after my initial submission, which I believe strengthened the article considerably. A friend of mine once told me that the former editor of NTS gave him no feedback when his article was rejected. I’m sure every journal editor has his/her own policy. Thankfully, I’ve had the privilege of interacting with several very helpful editors.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 at 6:47 pm
Thanks. It is bizarre to get a resubmit and then a no-explanation rejection. Did you ask for one, or just sent it to greener pastures?
Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 9:10 pm
I just moved on
Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 9:46 pm
Thanks for sharing your experiences.