Do I need to engage with cultural rhetorics scholarship in my submission?
While we realize that cultural rhetorics is an emerging field, we do ask that authors engage with cultural rhetorics in their work. We suggest that such an engagement includes approaching the topic of the submission through the lens of cultural rhetorics, and citing cultural rhetorics scholarship.
Do you have suggestions for cultural rhetorics scholarship I can cite?
Defining cultural rhetorics:
Powell, Malea, et al. “Our story begins here: Constellating cultural rhetorics.” Enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture, vol. 25 2014.
Powell, Malea and Bratta, Phil. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Entering the Cultural Rhetorics Conversations.” Enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture, vol. 21 2016.
Mailloux, Steven. Disciplinary Identities: Rhetorical Paths of English, Speech, and Composition. New York, Modern Language Assn of Amer, 2006.
Cultural rhetorics as methodology:
Medina-López, Kelly. “Rasquache Rhetorics: a cultural rhetorics sensibility.” Constellations: A Cultural Rhetorics Publishing Space, vol. 1 no. 1, 2018: 1-20.
Mukavetz, Andrea M. Riley. “Towards a cultural rhetorics methodology: Making research matter with multi-generational women from the Little Traverse Bay Band.” Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, vol. 5 no.1, 2014, pp. 108-125.
Historical approaches to cultural rhetorics:
Dougherty, Timothy R. “Knowing (y) our story: Practicing decolonial rhetorical history.” Enculturation, vol. 21, 2016.
Schoen, Megan. “Toward a Rhetoric of Kagiso: Rhetoric and Democracy in Botswana.” Constellations: A Cultural Rhetorics Publishing Space, vol. 1 no.1, 2018.
Cultural rhetorics and memoir:
Hidalgo, Alexandra. “Creating Our Pasts Together: A Cultural Rhetorics Approach to Memoirs.” Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics, vol. 2, no. 1, 2018,
Cultural rhetorics in video and documentary:
Hidalgo, Alexandra. “Vanishing fronteras: A call for documentary filmmaking in cultural rhetorics (con la ayuda de Anzaldúa).” Enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture, 2016.
Von Petersdorff, Anne. “Embodied Encounters: A Case for Autobiographical and Haptic Filmmaking.” Constellations: A Cultural Rhetorics Publishing Space vol. 1, 2018.
Cultural rhetorics and pedagogy:
Pedagogy Blog. constellations, 2019.
Chrobak, Jill McKay. “The Struggle is Real: Whiteness Studies, Hip Hop Pedagogies, and the Rhetorics of White Privilege.”Constellations: A Cultural Rhetorics Publishing Space, Vol. 1, 2018.
Cultural rhetorics and activism:
Ramos, Santos F. “Building a Culture of Solidarity: Racial Discourse, Black Lives Matter, and Indigenous Social Justice.” Enculturation, vol. 21, 2016, pp. 1-6.
NOTE: If you have a piece that you would like to add to this list, please email us the piece and the category you think it fits under.
How strict are you about the 6,000 word limit for articles?
Quite strict. We aim to publish pieces that are profound and complex but manage to achieve their point within 6,000 words excluding citations and notes. While we can accept submissions that are a little over the limit, our aim is to publish pieces that do not exceed 6,000 words. Do not send in submissions that are over 7,000 words, as we will return them and ask that you trim them before we send them to reviewers.
What does the review process look like once I submit?
The following steps take place after you submit your piece:
- The editorial assistant checks to see that you have met all of the submission requirements according to our guidelines and communicates with you to make any necessary changes.
- The piece is then scanned by the editor-in-chief and one managing editor before starting the official review process.
- The editorial assistant sends your piece to two reviewers to start the double-blind review process. This process takes approximately 8-12 weeks.
- Reviewers assign your piece a status. These include: Accept for Publication, Accept with Minor Revisions, Accept with Major Revisions, Revise and Resubmit, and Reject for Publication. Working with the editor-in-chief, the managing editor assigned to your piece writes a memo in which they explain the status that has been assigned to your piece based on reviewer feedback and on their own sense of the piece. The memo will also explain the changes that are most important to the editorial team for you to work on in your revision.
- Once your piece reaches either Accept with Major Revisions or Accept with Minor Revisions status, you will be assigned a mentor if you choose to have one. The mentor will help you work through the revision process (see below for an explanation of how that is done).
- The managing editor assigned to your piece and the editor-in-chief will also work with you to address minor final changes to the piece before it is moved to copy editing and posting.
- We publish on a rolling basis, so your piece will be published and announced when it is ready. Once an entire issue is complete, an introduction to it will be published and the issue will be announced.
What are the “production credits” at the end of each piece?
One of our commitments is to make visible all the labor that goes into the publishing process. While academic publishing can appear to be a simple process between authors, reviewers, and editors, there are teams that make this publication possible whose work often remains unseen and uncredited. Publication credits make that work and those behind it visible.
What are mentors and what is their role?
Because we believe in transforming the editorial and publication processes to be more supportive, we offer the opportunity to work with a mentor once the piece has been given an Accept with Revisions status to authors who want it. Mentors help authors look through and interpret reviewer and editor comments and develop strategies for revision.
If the review process is anonymous, why are the reviewers named?
Similar to our reasons for crediting all those involved in the production of a piece, anonymous reviewers also do a significant amount of labor to move a piece toward publication that often goes unnoticed. Our reviewers will remain anonymous until the submission is complete, but once the production credits are written, the reviewers have the option to be named so their contribution is recognized.
So is the review process actually anonymous?
Yes. When reviewers initially receive a piece and offer their review, both their identity and that of the author is unknown to each other. It is only when a piece goes to mentorship and then publication that reviewers have the option to become known to the author.