Articles

Peitho publishes research articles on a wide range of interdisciplinary issues and topics that make use of feminist rhetorical theories, themes, and methodological approaches. Peitho is committed to providing a venue for scholarship related to feminisms and rhetorics conceived broadly. Work that engages with intersectional feminism and, thus, addresses the deep cultural tensions—around race and racialization, gendered violence, white supremacy, and imperialism that exist within the U.S., within the US’s complex transglobal relations, and often throughout the globe is especially welcome. Peitho invites submissions on a wide range of topics related to feminist theories and gendered practices, including but not limited to:

• Feminist approaches to rhetorical, communication, and composition theory
• Rhetorics of racialization
• Feminist methodologies
• Transnational feminist approaches to rhetoric
• Feminist-Inflected Political economic analyses
• Feminist decolonial studies and Indigenous studies
• Institutional critiques
• Feminist mentorship
• Feminist administration
• Emerging feminist pedagogies
• Feminist approaches to embodiment and to the rhetoric of health and medicine
• LGBTQ+ studies
• Feminism and digital media
• Historiographical research and archival scholarship

Typical article length should be 7,000 to 10,000 words, though longer manuscripts may be considered if the author(s) consult with the editorial team in advance of submission.

All authors using human subjects research should submit a letter or approval notification from the writer’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) with the submission.

Recoveries and Reconsiderations

We also invite shorter submissions (4,000 words and fewer) for Recoveries and Reconsiderations–a feature of the journal that serves as a forum for sharing innovative perspectives on and application of existing feminist rhetorical work, as well as an incubator for new feminist rhetorics research projects. Items for Recoveries and Reconsiderations might include, but are not limited to:

• preliminary description and feminist analysis of the work of recently recovered historical groups, figures, and practices
• preliminary description and feminist analysis of current-day groups, figures, and practices
• focused feminist reconsiderations of well-known or established rhetoricians, rhetorical theories, and/or rhetorical practices
• descriptions and contextualizations of archival collections/materials of potential interest to Peitho readers
• examples and discussions of feminist pedagogical practices for re-visioning rhetorical education

Overlays

Overlays are short, first-person or otherwise less formal academic essays of up to 4,000 words that focus on archival research experiences. The spirit of Overlays is to create a space for interesting, provocative archival finds, learning, or insights that help researchers explore rhetorics further; work out ideas they are gleaning from historical feminist research; or share something relevant that perhaps “didn’t make it” into a more formalized or finalized academic writing product. Some prompts for Overlays include:

• An archival research challenge, struggle, tangle, or unclear, frustrating experience that you cannot yet understand, that flies in the face of your assumptions, that complicates what you thought you knew
• An archival find that doesn’t fit, that extends thinking, that challenges paradigms, that is not expected, or that can’t yet be easily categorized or understood in our field of feminist rhetorical research
• An a-ha moment you had in the archives, how archival methodology’s limits and affordances pushed you to learn, to make connections, or to understand something in a new way
• Commentary on archival experiences that underscore the limits of whose lives are recorded, saved, and archived, and how and whether we can resuscitate more and different artifacts
• A research experience or story that encapsulates why archives remain important to feminist rhetorical research, and/or what new affordances there may be in conceptions of 21st century archives as mediated by technologies

As an essay genre, Overlays:

• May be artistic and feature narrative and dialogue conventions as appropriate
• Should nod to appropriate theories or extant scholarship
• Writers of Overlays are encouraged to share original photography of archival finds that fall within permissions of their archives of origins and/or IRB permission
• Overlays should be clearly linked to the aims and scope of Peitho as the journal of the Coalition of Scholars in the History of Feminism and Rhetorics.

Peer Review Process for Articles, Recoveries and Reconsiderations, and Overlays

Manuscripts should not be previously published or under consideration elsewhere. Manuscripts should bear no identifying information (internal or external) about the author(s).

Manuscripts that the editorial team deems to be within the scope and audience of the journal will be submitted for anonymous review by two external readers, who will be asked to complete reviews within six to eight weeks of receiving them, yet there are sometimes delays in finding reviewers and obtaining reviews. Once anonymous reviews are obtained, authors will receive a decision letter from the editors, which will include copies of the reviews.

Pedagogies of Feminist Rhetoric

Peitho welcomes written submissions on the teaching of feminist rhetoric; we encourage you to send us pieces that describe and reflect on innovative teaching practices in courses where the focus is feminist rhetoric and where you, as a teacher, implement feminist pedagogies in innovative ways.

Pedagogy pieces can take two different shapes:

Course designs

Course Designs (full course with syllabus) should follow the guidelines provided by Composition Studies (below) with a notable adaptation:

• The design should focus on a course in feminist rhetoric (i.e., students are learning about/using feminist rhetoric) or a course in teaching feminist rhetoric (i.e., students are learning how to teach feminist rhetoric)

We are grateful to Composition Studies for allowing us to adopt the journal’s model.

CDs should highlight instructional innovation. That is, we are not looking for descriptions of well-conceived courses that integrate established practices and principles or courses organized around novel topics but reliant on standard practice. We wish to showcase teaching innovation that invites readers to consider the value of new approaches. We also hope these submissions address a perceived pedagogical problem that innovation might redress.

CDs should be developed in the sections elaborated below, using the recommended section headings as subtitles. Together, the first four sections (everything except the References page and syllabus) should amount to 10-15 double-spaced pages.

Required Sections

1. A course description that briefly outlines the course. Each CD begins with the official course title (as it is listed in the institution’s course catalog/schedule), the teacher’s (or teachers’) name, and the institution where the course is taught. Following this, include a brief (about 100 words) overview of the course’s subject matter, underlying assumptions, major goals, and/or pedagogical approach.
2. A description of the institutional context, explaining the relationship between the course and/or its specific design and the program, department, institution, or community in which the course is offered. The CD feature assumes that despite the normalization of institutional and disciplinary practices, teaching is a local activity.
3. A theoretical rationale that explains the course’s theoretical assumptions and their relationship to the content, structure, activities, and assignments announced in the syllabus. This section establishes the scholarly antecedents or influences that inform the course’s practical components and the teacher’s expectations. Critical to this section is an explicit discussion of the purpose(s) of the course, its perceived goals and outcomes, both in general and in relation to its particular pedagogical design: What is the course for? Why has it been designed the way it has? What might result if it is effectively taught? Together with the critical reflection that follows, this section is the heart of the course design.
4. A critical reflection in which the author assesses strengths and acknowledges weaknesses, proposes adjustments or modifications based on outcomes, and discusses implications for the field at large. A basic assumption driving the CD feature is that pedagogical practices are not static and so benefit from continual rethinking in light of shifting institutional, sociopolitical, and intellectual contexts. While we are interested in courses that seem to “work,” we seek submissions that are attentive to opportunities for revision or that frame coursework as an opportunity for reflecting on the shape, purpose, and value of writing studies writ large.
5. A reference page that includes titles referenced or consulted, with the exception of those referenced in the syllabus (those works should be cited in the syllabus itself—see below). Please adhere to current APA guidelines.
6. A syllabus presented as closely as possible to the document actually distributed to students. That said, any section not critical to an understanding of the course and its context (for instance, an attendance policy) may be removed. We encourage authors to keep syllabi under six single-spaced manuscript pages, including calendar. In general, the syllabus should include a course description, statement of goals, or expectations; a brief explanation of the assignment sequence, including evaluation criteria; a bibliography of required readings; a calendar; and inclusion of any features unique to the course.

Please format the syllabus as follows:

• Type no smaller than 12-point to allow for readable reduction of the document.
• The calendar should list meetings, requirements, due dates, etc. under headings such as “Day One” or “Week Five” rather than specific dates.
• References to published work—required reading, etc.—must be accompanied by complete citation information.
• Authors should take care to prevent the inference that distribution of required course reading might be in violation of copyright law.

Instructional notes

Instructional notes (activities or lessons) should follow the guidelines provided by TETYC (below) with one notable adaptation:

• Focus of the activity or lesson should be on feminist rhetoric (i.e., students are learning about/using feminist rhetoric)

We are grateful to TETYC for allowing us to adopt the journal’s model, originally crafted by Nell Ann Pickett.

An excellent Instructional Note does the following:

• Establishes an exigency: A publishable Instructional note will identify a teaching problem to be addressed that requires some innovative strategy in order to reach the desired outcomes. What is the exigency for the project? What are the desired outcomes? On what basis does the author’s claim that this is an important teaching or learning problem rest?
• Situates the strategy in the context of the ongoing discussion: In other words, a literature review is expected, albeit not the full-fledged, thoroughgoing one that would be expected in a feature article. Strong notes will identify how their ideas reflect or challenge current disciplinary thinking about the teaching or learning questions being discussed. Effective instructional notes will also situate the author’s pedagogical ideas within local circumstances by describing the course, the curriculum, the campus, and the students to some extent.
• Presents the “how-to” of implementing the instructional strategy: The pedagogical approach is outlined in sufficient detail to reproduce in another instructor’s classroom. Further, as experienced instructors, readers know that no plans proceed without a hitch. What challenges can readers expect? What bumps in the road did the writer have to problem solve? How were they resolved, and if they weren’t, why not?
• Offers Clear Outcomes: Instructional Notes conclude by offering evidence of student outcomes either through a case study or two of student work, anecdotal evidence of what transpired, student reflections on their experiences, or other assessment measures appropriate to the activity; these should be used with permission from students or from the appropriate institutional review board.

Review Process for Pedagogy Submissions

The co-editors will evaluate a pedagogy submission according to how well it:

• presents an innovative instructional approach
• moves beyond “what I did in my class last term” to examine what students and teachers learned.
• theorizes the content of the course as well as the pedagogical approach—that is, the ends and means of the instruction being presented.
• adds to/complicates/calls into question commonly held ideas about teaching feminist rhetoric
• connects to a larger concern or dilemma in the field of feminist rhetoric.

Co-editors reserve the right to send a pedagogy submission for peer review when relevant.

Special Issues

Our special issues are usually published in summers, though the Editorial Team may, at their discretion, plan special issues in other seasons. Each year, the Editorial Team posts an open call for proposals for special issue topics. Proposals and the prospective guest editors’ CVs are reviewed by the Editorial Board.

Book Reviews

Peitho publishes reviews of books that relate to the journal’s focus. We especially encourage reviews of books written by multiply-marginalized and underrepresented authors. We encourage those who are new to academic publishing to write reviews as a way to learn more about the publishing process.

We encourage potential reviewers to reach out to the associate editor (Jennifer Nish: jmnish@mtu.edu) to propose a specific text for review or to ask questions about the process of writing and publishing a review. Corresponding with Dr. Nish will help to ensure that we don’t receive multiple submissions for the same book. As part of this conversation, we may ask for a brief proposal to help us understand the relevance of the proposed review.

Completed reviews should be submitted in the WAC Clearinghouse system with the words “book review” in the title. Submissions should adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Review type and length (length does not include works cited):
   1. Reviews of a single text should summarize the book’s content and discuss its contribution to the field with a particular focus on Peitho readers’ interest in feminist rhetorics and/or rhetoric’s intersection with gender and sexuality.
      1. Reviews of single-authored books: no more than 1500 words.
      2. Reviews of edited collections: no more than 1900 words.
   2. Review essays that discuss two or three related books should not exceed 3,000 words. Review essays should highlight similar themes, questions, or approaches between the texts while also highlighting what’s unique about each text. Review essays should also draw on the reviewer’s expertise to identify the works’ contributions to the field of rhetorical studies and/or to Peitho readers.
2. Reviewers should explain how they engaged with the text and/or its applicability to their own work in addition to how they imagine other readers engaging with the text.
3. As our embodied lived experiences influence the way in which we read, engage, and review a text, reviewers should acknowledge their own positionality to help readers understand the lens through which you, the reviewer, see the text.
4. While reviewers may disclose any disagreements they have regarding the text, we do ask that reviewers are mindful of the tone in which they present these disagreements.
5. Include keywords to identify themes in the review.
6. Book reviews that cite other scholarship must include consistent APA citation practices.
7. All book reviewers must submit a 100–150-word biography to accompany the piece.

All book reviews will be reviewed by the Associate Editor. Decisions about reviews will be based on the quality of the review and its relevance to Peitho readers.

Formatting

• Traditional text manuscripts should be submitted as Microsoft Word documents. Most article-length manuscripts are between 7,000 and 10,000 words, and manuscripts for Recoveries and Reconsiderations should be no longer than 4000 words.
• Please include a running head that includes a shortened version of your title, but does not include your name. Submissions for Recoveries and Reconsiderations should include the words “Recoveries and Reconsiderations” as part of the manuscript title. Please include an abstract and keywords.
• Follow current APA format (7th edition) for citations with a first name exception: use authors’ first names only the first time when the author is named in the discussion and also in the list of references. Please note that first names do not need to be used in the in-text citations themselves.
• We welcome multimedia submissions and digital scholarship. Please contact the Editors if you have questions about sending these types of submissions.
• In your manuscripts, please provide descriptions for all included multimedia files. For images, we prefer contextual information (Figure 1: what it is) as well as description (what can you see). Examples can be found in these articles: Silently Speaking Bodies, Research on the Literate Practices of Field Matrons on the Hopi Reservation, For Lisa: A Patchwork Quilt.

Policy on Writing with Artificial Intelligence

• The use of Generative AI is prohibited for the preparation and writing of manuscripts submitted to Peitho.
• Clearly disclosed use of AI for computational research will be permitted at the discretion of the editorial team. Use the “Comments for Editors” box during the submission process to disclose this type of use upon first submission.
• With exceptions for when AI is used to conduct computational research or as an object of scrutiny, the expectation is that the entire manuscript text is human-written by the named author. In instances with any AI usage, the extent of use must be carefully documented in a note to the editors and reviewers.
• Citation managers that aid authors with developing accurate reference lists may be used without documentation.
• AI and text generators that assist with grammar, spelling, punctuation, style, and clarity must be used with great caution as they may result in dramatically changed text that reads like AI, which and thus will be treated as AI-generated.
• The journal reserves the right at any stage to not publish a manuscript if it is determined to have ethical issues, including but not limited to AI usage.
• Authors must not input reader reports or editorial decisions into generative AI platforms to create revision ideas, wording, or plans for any reason. In addition to providing authors with synthesized feedback from reviewers, the editorial team at Peitho would be happy to meet with authors to discuss their plans for revisions.
• Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate reviews. Do not paste any portion of manuscripts into text generators or other LLMs.

*Adapted with gratitude from ”Submission Guidelines.” June 2025. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine. https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/rhm/about/submissions

Submitting to Peitho

Peitho manuscript submissions and peer reviews are managed through the WAC Clearinghouse system. You will need to visit the WAC Clearinghouse Submissions Portal and follow a four-step process:

1. 1. Create an account
   2. You’ll then be directed to a menu that asks if you would like to submit to a journal, submit a proposal, submit a manuscript to a book series, or submit a chapter for an edited collection. Please select “Submit to a Journal.”
   3. On the next page, select “Peitho” as the journal for submission.
   4. Complete the submission form and upload your anonymized manuscript as a Word or PDF file.
   5. If IRB approved for human participant research, please attach your IRB letter as an “additional file.”
   6. Use the “Comments for Editors” box to tell us:
      1. What type of article, whether full-length article, “Recoveries and Reconsiderations,” “Overlays,” “Pedagogies,” or “Book Review.” (Book reviews may also be sent directly to Dr. Jennifer Nish, as stated above in the Book Review section).
      2. Disclosures of AI use as described above

Email the Peitho Editorial TeamSubmit a Manuscript

Review for Peitho

Be a peer reviewer for Peitho! Complete our interest form at this link. You’ll receive an email with reviewer account information at WAC Clearinghouse, where you can complete your profile. We hope you’ll join the Peitho community as a reviewer!