A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture

Submission & Review Guidelines

Submissions to enculturation should be sent to the following addresses:

Articles: Laurie Gries -- gries [dot] enculturation [at] gmail [dot] com

Reviews: Trisha Campbell -- digital [dot] trisha [at] gmail [dot] com

Responses: Donnie Sackey -- Donnie [dot] sackey [at] wayne [dot] edu

Intermezzo: Jeff Rice -- j [dot] rice [at] uky [dot] edu

Submissions for traditional articles should be 6,000-8,000 (including references and footnotes) words while book reviews should be 1000-2000 words. Both should adhere to the most recent MLA citation guidelines.  If you send an attachment, Word files in DOC, DOCX, or RTF are preferable. For hypertext or media projects, you may initially submit a URL but will ultimately need to send a zipped version of the project for review. Please make sure to omit all authorial markers in all submissions. (Please follow this link for more information about responses and this link for more information about Intermezzo submissions). 

Within two weeks of receiving your submission, a Managing Editor will confirm receipt and will notify you of our interest in your submission. enculturation operates on rolling submissions. Submissions will be reviewed for fit as they are submitted and posted as soon as they are peer reviewed, approved for publication, copy-edited, and formatted. Published content will be listed under the heading "New Articles and Reviews" on the right side of the homepage. 

At appropriate times throughout the year, the most recent content will be assigned a new issue number and listed in a table of contents. This allows us to combine a more immediate publication schedule with the traditional notion of issues.

We also accept the submission of books for review from publishers or individuals. They will be listed in the Reviews section in the main menu. 

Please send them to the address below
enculturation c/o Byron Hawk
Department of English
Humanities Office Building
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

Review Process
enculturation is a blind peer-reviewed journal. Once a submission is posted in the queue, the Managing Editor will review it and determine whether it will be assigned to members of the editorial board for review. If the Managing Editor determines that a submission does not fit within the scope of enculturation or is otherwise unsuitable for blind review, s/he will provide feedback explaining this decision. Once a submission has been reviewed by the Managing Editor, it is assigned to two editorial board members (or possibly one editorial board member and one guest reviewer) who review the submissions based on the following format:

General Evaluation (select appropriate numbers):

___1. The submission is significant and sound, falls within the scope of enculturation, and should be published with only minor revisions.

___2. The submission is basically significant and sound but requires rewriting to make it a solid publishable contribution.

___3. The submission requires major rewriting and it should be revised and resubmitted for review.

___4. The submission is sound but does not fall within the scope of enculturation and should not be included.

___5. The submission does not exhibit a broad enough understanding of the field and does not warrant further consideration by enculturation.

Comments to the Author: Reviewers will include elaborations on selections from 1-5 above and note specific places for revision, suggestions for cutting, or other issues with the text.

Comments to the Managing Editor: Submissions that enter the editorial queue receive two blind reviews from different board members, who then submit their responses to the Managing Editor.

Feedback to Authors: Once these reviews have been examined, the Managing Editor selects the pieces s/he feels warrant inclusion in enculturation and informs the authors of this decision (providing the author with copies of each blind review).

The Managing Editor will send one of three possible responses to the author:

1) Accepted: The submission is accepted for publication with minor revisions. This response coincides with evaluation #1 above.

2) Revise and Resubmit: The submission is basically significant and sound but requires rewriting to make it a solid publishable contribution. This response coincides with evaluation #2 or #3 above.

3) Not Accepted: The submission is not accepted for publication. This response coincides with evaluation #4 or #5 above.

NOTE: Authors who are asked to revise and resubmit will also be asked to include a brief cover letter explaining how they have addressed the concerns of the editorial board.

Once the submission is resubmitted, it will be sent to the same two blind reviewers who read the initial submission. Authors of accepted submissions will be asked to make any needed revisions and to return their work to the Managing Editor for final review.

Once the Managing Editor is confident that the author has addressed the concerns of the editorial board, s/he submits the manuscript to the Production Editor for formatting. The manuscript is then reviewed by the Copy Editor. After the manuscript has been formatted and copy edited, the author will be asked to review the piece. Authors will be given one week to check for accuracy or any other issues. At this point, the submission will be published and will appear in the "New Articles and Reviews" box on the right side of the page.