Peer Reviewer Guidelines

[Guidelines for Notes]
[Guidelines for Archives Essays]

Journal Scope

Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature publishes articles on women’s literature in all time periods, places, and genres. While submissions need not be exclusively concerned with female writers, the focus must be on women and writing, explicating the specific links between the woman writer and her work. Tulsa Studies also encourages work in feminist critical and literary theory. 

Article Evaluation

Please evaluate the submission with the following considerations in mind:

  • Does the article place the writer and her work in some larger literary, historical, political, or social framework and argue a thesis that encompasses more than a reading of a single text or several texts by a single author?
  • Does the article’s theoretical or methodological framework, rhetoric, and readings cohere to forward an argument that adds new ideas or concepts to the relevant fields?
  • Is the article grounded in relevant scholarship, discourse, or expertise in the given area?
  • Are there major issues in the form or content that need to be addressed? Is the prose clear and readable?

While considering these questions, please keep in mind these anti-discriminatory principles:

  • Encourage inclusive citation practices that represent diverse canons and epistemological foundations by noting whether citations draw from a range of relevant feminist and cultural rhetorical traditions, including scholars from multiple identities, if known. Make recommendations, if possible.
  • Lack of certain “canonical” citations is not automatically grounds for rejection. Some canonical work may be purposefully uncited because of their oppressive or harmful ideas.
  • Read and respond to work on its own terms without demanding it be reframed through dominant forms of expertise. Consider lived experiences as a source of expertise and excellence where appropriate.
  • Consider carefully before suggesting that certain work is not within the purview of the field or that certain methodology is not applicable to the works being discussed.

For more information, see

Report Guidelines

A good report will carefully and succinctly summarize the main points of the article and endeavor to be impartial, providing an honest yet fair critical judgment of the submission’s strengths and weaknesses. Reports should help those who submit articles to see clearly what they have and have not accomplished. Your advice is important to authors in revising their articles, and we ask that you provide detailed, constructive feedback, whether or not you recommend publication. Though excerpts of your assessment will be shared anonymously, please be diplomatic to foster a community of feminist scholars helping each other improve.

Readers’ Ethical Responsibilities

  • Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential. Do not quote from or circulate the manuscript you are evaluating.
  • Readers should recuse themselves if they feel they know the author. Until you have completed your report, it also would be a good idea to avoid searching the submission’s title online. Because so many conference programs are posted online, such searches might accidentally reveal the author’s identity to you and thus compromise our review process.
  • Any kind of similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any published book or essay of which readers have personal knowledge should be brought to the attention of the editor.
  • Readers should notify the journal as soon as possible if they are unable to complete the evaluation within the requested time frame, so the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer and the author receive a decision in a timely manner.
Mary Wollstonecraft Sojourner Truth Margaret Atwood Abigail Adams Amy Tan H.D. Simone de Beauvoir Zora Neale Hurston Frances Burney Virginia Woolf

"The white saxifrage with the indented leafe is moste commended for the breakinge of the Stone."

— Turner, Herbal, III, 68 [1568]