Reviewer Guidelines


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.


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 Publicationor 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.