Scope and Aim
Peitho is the peer-reviewed journal of the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition. Published quarterly, Peitho seeks to encourage, advance, and publish original research in the history of rhetoric and composition, including its sister disciplines of communication and gender studies. We publish both externally peer reviewed traditional length essays and shorter reflective pieces in addition to cluster conversations, special issues, and book reviews.
Externally Peer Reviewed Pieces
Articles
The Editorial Team at Peitho sees the field of rhetoric, composition, and communication to be at an interesting and important place. Peitho is poised to address 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. These tensions make it necessary for feminist work to evolve and change. Peitho invites article-length 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
- Political economic analyses
- Feminist decolonial studies and Indigenous studies
- Institutional critiques
- Feminist mentorship
- Feminist administration
- Emerging pedagogies
- Feminist approaches to embodiment
- LGBTQ+ studies
- Feminism and digital media
- Historiographical research and archival scholarship
Recoveries and Reconsiderations
We also invite shorter submissions for Recoveries and Reconsiderations, a feature of the journal that serves as a forum for sharing innovative perspectives on and application of existing feminist work, as well an incubator for new feminist 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
Peer Review Process for Articles and Recoveries and Reconsiderations
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 four to six weeks of receiving them. Authors then will receive those reviews, along with a letter from the editors about the status of their manuscript. The journal typically aims for reviewers to complete their feedback 6-8 weeks after they receive the manuscript for review. However, delays may occur during the review process.
Conversations and Book Reviews
Cluster Conversations
We publish collections of shorter pieces called Cluster Conversations: a Cluster Conversation is also known in academic journals as a symposium or forum. Those who wish to propose a cluster and serve as editors of the cluster should contact the Editorial Team. Cluster editors are expected to solicit submissions for the cluster and be responsible for the review process (they may do the reviewing themselves or have contributors review each other’s submissions). Clusters do not go through the typical review process used for articles or Recoveries and Reconsiderations essays. Cluster editors are responsible for reviewing, and the Editorial Team may ask for minor revisions at the copyediting stage.
Cluster pieces should be shorter than typical scholarly articles (though word count is the discretion of the cluster editors), and other genres are encouraged: open letters, poems, short narratives, position papers, and more. Generally, clusters have six to eight pieces, with an introduction written by the cluster editors. Cluster editors are responsible for editing and the first stage of copy editing.
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 on rhetorical scholarship, pedagogy, and practice, especially as it intersects with feminism, gender, and/or sexuality. In keeping with the journal’s commitment to feminist and anti-racist practices, we encourage reviews of books written by multiply-marginalized and underrepresented authors and we encourage those who are new to academic publishing to write reviews as a way to learn more about the publishing process. We also encourage reviews that highlight how gender and sexuality connect to systems of oppression such as white supremacy, colonialism, imperialism, ableism, global capitalism, and, of course, cisheteropatriarchy.
We encourage potential reviewers to reach out to the associate editor with questions about the process of writing and publishing a review or to propose a specific text for review. This will help ensure that we don’t receive multiple review 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.
Book review submissions should adhere to the following guidelines:
- Review type and length (length does not include works cited):
- 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.
- Reviews of single-authored books: no more than 1500 words.
- Reviews of edited collections: no more than 1900 words.
- 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.
- 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.
- Reviewers should pay close attention to detailing how they engaged with the text. We ask authors to mention the text’s applicability to their own work in addition to discussing how they imagine other readers engaging with the text.
- As our embodied lived experiences influence the way in which we read, engage, and review a text, reviewers should also acknowledge their own positionality in relation to the text. This move better assists readers in understanding the lens through which you, the reviewer, see the text.
- While reviewers may disclose any disagreements they have regarding the text, we do ask that reviewers are mindful of the tone in which they utilize to present these disagreements.
- Book reviews must include consistent MLA citation practices.
- 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 6000 and 8000 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 MLA format (8th edition) for citations. For archival materials, please use the following citation style:
Author last name, first name. Title or description of material. Date. MS or TS [manuscript or typescript]. Name of Collection. Box number, folder number. Name of repository, affiliated university, city.
- 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.
Submitting
Peitho manuscript submissions and peer reviews are managed through the WAC Clearinghouse system. You will need to visit the WAC Clearinghouse Submissions page and follow a four-step process:
- Create an account
- You’ll then be directed to a menu that asks you to 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.”
- On the next page, select “Peitho” as the journal for submission.
- Finally, complete the submission form and upload your manuscript.
REVIEWER GUIDELINES
Mission
Peitho maintains two equally essential reviewer philosophies. We uphold the scholarly double-blind review process that is preferred for academic promotions. We also manifest an environment that seeks to mentor scholars with feminist support. To advance these two goals, we require that reviewers be rigorous and forward-looking in their assessment of our manuscripts. Reviewers are meant to simultaneously provide critical feedback while also aiding writers in their revision process. We expect reviewers to adhere to antiracist principles for reviewing.”
Practicals
Peitho manuscripts and reviewers are managed through the Submittable system. Once a scholar has accepted a review request, they will receive an invitation to the Peitho Submittable team. They will create their account and then be assigned to the manuscript they have been asked to review. After selecting the “Begin Review” button, Submittable will prompt the reviewer to answer the following questions:
- Is this manuscript appropriate for publication in Peitho? Why or why not?
- How does this manuscript fit within and extend existing feminist rhetorical scholarship? For example, does this manuscript present new or little-known material, or does it contribute a new understanding of known material by treating it in an original manner?
- What suggestions do you have for the author in terms of revision? This could include scholarship cited, writing style, argument/counterargument presentation, copy editing, etc.
Focus Points
We consider all three of these questions to be equally important. The answers to these questions will allow the manuscript’s author to successfully revise their manuscript, both to present a better general argument, and also to fulfill Peitho’s specific guidelines and mission. In the course of responding to all three of the questions above, reviewers should be sure to address the following areas:
- Readiness of publication: Does this manuscript need only superficial edits, thus landing it in Accept with Revisions? Or, does it need significant reworking in a few areas, thus garnering a Revise and Resubmit? Or, are the ideas sound, but the manuscript needs a complete overhaul of method/organization/framing, getting a Not Ready for Publication—or a Reject, if the manuscript is exceptionally problematic? Please explain your answer, pointing to specific aspects that need revision.
- Engagement with current scholarship: Is the manuscript in an ongoing scholarly conversation? Are there resources the author should engage with to ensure the relevancy of their argument?
- Commitment to methods and practices of feminist scholarship: How does the manuscript engage in subversive, intersectional, and/or anti-hierarchical work?
Re-review Addendum
Often when a manuscript receives a Revise and Resubmit decision, the author will choose to resubmit the article to Peitho after revision. We ask the same reviewers to then assess the revised manuscript to determine readiness for publication. The process is slightly different than that described above. Rather than submitting the review directly through Submittable, the review is done via a .docx document sent from the Editorial Team as an attachment with the invitation to re-review. In addition to the three standard review questions listed above, we also ask re-reviewers to take up the following question:
- How did the author address revision suggestions? Please explain any remaining ways in which the author should revise the manuscript in response to previous reviews.
EDITORIAL LEADERSHIP
Editors
Rebecca Dingo, University of Massachusetts
Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Associate Editor
Jennifer Nish, Michigan Tech University
Editorial Assistants
Rachel Smith-Olson, University of Massachusetts
Stacie Klinowski, University of Massachusetts
Web Coordinator
Kelli Lycke Martin, University of Arizona
Editorial Board
Mais Al-Khateeb, Florida State University
Jean Bessette, University of New Hampshire
Ronisha Browdy, Florida State University
Christina Cedillo, University of Houston-Clear Lake
Sherri Craig, Virginia Tech
Abby Dubisar, Iowa State University
Lynee Lewis Gaillet, Georgia State University
Tarez Graban, Florida State University (chair)
Jane Greer, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Jenna Hanchey, Arizona State University
Holly Hassel, North Dakota State University
Charlotte Hogg, Texas Christian University
Jo Hsu, University of Texas-Austin
Stephanie Kerschbaum, University of Washington
Kim Nguyen, University of Waterloo
Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Ruth Osorio, Old Dominion University
Jessica Reyman, Northern Illinois University
Jessica Rose, Georgia Tech University
Jaquetta Shade-Johnson, University of Missouri-Columbia
Karrieann Soto Vega, University of Kentucky
Hui Wu, University of Texas-Tyler
BY-LAWS
Revised: 1 January 2024
This document outlines the mission and organizational structure, including the responsibilities of the Editorial Team and Editorial Board and the processes for Peitho, the peer-reviewed journal of the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition (CFSHRC).
Mission
Peitho exists to support the Coalition’s mission: to encourage, advance, and publish innovative “feminist research…across histories, locales, identities, materialities, and media…” We expect reviewers to adhere to antiracist principles for reviewing.
Organizational Structure
Three groups participate in Peitho’s planning and production: the journal’s Editorial Team (Editor, Associate Editor, Editorial Assistant(s), and Peitho Web Coordinator), the journal’s Editorial Board, and the CFSHRC Executive Board (represented by at least one member on the journal’s Editorial Board).
Editorial Team
Editorial Team
The Editorial Team consists of an Editor, Associate Editor, any Editorial Assistants hired by the Editor or Associate Editor directly, and the Peitho Web Coordinator. Each of these positions may be held collaboratively, filled by multiple individuals if so desired.
The Editor and Associate Editor hold their positions for four years. An Editorial Assistant may hold their position up to four years; an individual may serve more than one term if conditions warrant. The Peitho Web Coordinator holds the position for a two-year renewable term.
The Editor has full purview over the editorial content and production of the journal, managing the submission, review, editorial, and online publication processes; the editor may also choose to share responsibility for a designated issue or issues with one or more Special Issue Editors. The Editor is responsible for producing fall, winter, spring, and summer issues of Peitho each year.
The Associate Editor is responsible for book reviews in each issue, for following up with authors who receive revise and resubmit requests and, if desired, finding mentors to assist prospective authors with interpreting reviewer comments and refining drafts. In consultation with the Editorial Team, and, where appropriate, with the approval of the Editorial Board, the Associate Editor may take on additional projects related to the journal as desired/needed.
The Editorial Assistant(s) is responsible for facilitating the daily work of the journal: contacting reviewers and submitters, answering emails, and other projects as determined by the Editor and/or Associate Editor.
The Peitho Web Coordinator is responsible for uploading each issue of the journal (currently published four times per year), archiving past issues, and helping to complete special journal features as determined via collaborations between the Peitho Editorial Team and the CFSHRC Executive Board.
The journal is co-hosted by the CFSHRC and WAC Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse posts and archives issues on its website. All issues prior to Spring 2024 also remain archived on the CFSHRC’s website.
Staffing is at the Editor’s discretion (with the exception of the Associate Editorship).
The Editor and Associate Editor are ex officio (nonvoting) members of the CFSHRC Advisory Board and are asked to function in such a manner. Per the CFSHRC Bylaws, Advisory Board members are expected to “participate…during the annual Advisory Board meeting at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, as well as occasionally by written consent throughout the year […] In addition to any duties and power conferred on it by the Executive Board, the Advisory Board shall attend Executive Board meetings and serve as mentors at Coalition sessions.” Additionally, they are asked to attend Advisory Board meetings at the biannual Feminisms and Rhetorics Conference as well as the CFSHRC Wednesday night open meeting, held annually at the Conference for College Composition and Communication.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Editorial Team
- Appoint the Editorial Board (see below for details).
- Call and attend regular Editorial Team meetings with the Editorial Board Chair and CFSHRC representative on the Editorial Board attending as needed.
- Send submitted manuscripts out for review
- Maintain communications with corresponding authors
- Provide reviews of manuscripts in a timely manner
- Offer respectful and constructive reviews of material submitted
- Maintain fair practices regarding submission reviews (i.e., blind submissions, blind reviews)
- Evaluate book review submissions
- Track all submissions.
- Write the introduction to each issue or in collaboration with special issue editors, as appropriate
- Prepare accepted manuscripts for layout
- Encourage submissions to the journal
- Offer mentorship to authors who receive revise and resubmits
- Call for special issue proposals as desired, evaluate them, and oversee their production in collaboration with special issue editors
- Collaborate, as appropriate, with the Executive Board of the CFSHRC on special journal features
- Maintain close communication with the Editorial Board and the CFSHRC Executive Board
Editor/Associate Editor and Peitho Web Coordinator Selection Process
At least one year prior to an anticipated Editor opening, and at least six months prior to an anticipated Associate Editor or Peitho Web Coordinator opening, the Chair of the Editorial Board will circulate a call for applications. The Chair will distribute applications to the Editorial Board, which will rank its top candidate/candidates. To enable an onboarding period, the incoming Editor(s) shall be asked to commit to a 6-month onboarding experience prior to the official start of their term. The onboarding arrangement can be worked out between outgoing and incoming Editors.
The Chair, Editor, Associate Editor, and CFSHRC Executive Board Representative on Peitho’s Editorial Board will interview the top candidate/candidates. Afterward, the Chair will share findings and make a recommendation regarding final selection to the Editorial Board, which will vote on the recommendation.
Once the Editorial Board has selected an applicant, the Chair will forward its recommendation to the full CFSHRC Executive Board for approval.
- If the selected applicant is not approved by the Executive Board, the Chair will return to the Editorial Board and strategize next steps.
- If the selected applicant is approved by the Executive Board, the Chair of the Editorial Board will invite the applicant to accept the open Editor/Associate Editor or Peitho Web Coordinator position.
Once accepted, the CFSHRC President will announce the appointment to the Coalition’s Advisory Board and general membership.
Editor/Associate Editor and Peitho Web Coordinator Removal Process
A member of the Editorial Team may be removed for sufficient cause based on the complaint of an Editorial Board member or a member of the CFSHRC Executive Board. Removal will be contingent on a quorum vote of the CFSHRC Executive Board and a two-thirds majority vote of the Editorial Board.
Budget
Beginning January 1, 2024, the Editor(s) shall be allocated an annual operating budget of up to $3,000 per year for two years, on a trial basis, in an account established by the Editor(s), to provide funding for software and technology, training, interns, stipends, publicity, and other costs associated with the development of regular and special issues. The budget shall be reestablished in 2025, i.e., unused funds will not accumulate.
Editorial Board
CFSHRC Executive Board
