International Feminist Journal of Politics

Submit to Us / FAQs


Submit to us

Thank you for your interest in submitting to the International Feminist Journal of Politics!

Below you will find answers to a variety of Frequently Asked Questions - about the scope of the IFJP, our review process and the variety of submissions we accept. Please use the menu on the right for quick links.

If you would like to see our general instructions for authors, please read the Taylor & Francis Guidelines.

If you are ready to submit your article, please go to the IFJP ScholarOne Portal


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)


  • Does the IFJP consider submissions by graduate students, activists, and/or policymakers?

The IFJP considers all submissions – authors from any discipline, global positionality, rank in academe or out of it. We aim to be an inclusive journal. Quality and consistency with the remit of the journal as assessed by external reviewers who are not aware of the identity of the author(s) determines acceptance.

We understand IFJP readers to be interested in many things, including (but not limited to) the link between the local and global; the experiences of activisms that are embedded in the grassroots; the theoretical insights made possible by this work; and a whole range of methodologies and data.

  • How finished does a paper have to be before submission?

You should be submitting an article that has a sustained central argument with appropriate reference to the related literatures. It should build on feminist scholarship in your field (don’t make this work invisible). You should consider the most recent and the foundational literature. It should be largely free of typographical errors (we realize some mistakes happen).

  • How important is the abstract?

Reviewers will decide whether to accept our invitation to review based on your abstract. Make sure it is very clear and free of typos. Do not use acronyms or abbreviations in abstracts. Abstracts should include the central argument and sources of evidence for empirical papers or sources of theoretical insight (or the inspiration) for theoretical papers.

  • What is a literature review?

A literature review is not an annotated bibliography of what you have read in preparation for writing your article. Nor is it a summary of the already published work that asks or answers your question. Rather, a literature review is the part of your argument that clearly demonstrates the audience for the piece, those who are already in the conversation, and your contribution to it.

As you prepare the literature review, think carefully about both past and recent work in feminist (and related) scholarship. Use this opportunity to make feminist scholarship visible, thus engaging in a collective and ongoing conversation of which the IFJP and your article are a part.

Further, as you situate your argument in “the” literature, imagine being a thought leader. While, of course, respecting that feminist scholarship is familiar to many who engage with your topic, also be attentive to race, national origin, and the ways that North American- and European-centrism can be re-inscribed even in our bibliographies. In other words, as appropriate to your field and topic, pay attention to both founding texts and recent work; pay attention to the gender, racial, and geographic diversity of the authors in your bibliography.

  • Do I need to identify a gap in the literature?

Sometimes there are “gaps” in the literature and new scholarship can seek to “fill” these. However, this is not the only way to think about the purpose of your scholarship and oftentimes this is not an especially feminist approach to developing a research question because it is inherently conservative, letting what has come before define the landscape of what can be. Perhaps it is more feminist to build on what has been done rather than to identify its gaps. Think about how you can build on and complement the field. Or, consider that the “gap” might not be between two literatures in the field, but rather between the literature and lived experience.

  • My article is set in only one country. Can I still submit to the IFJP?

The IFJP relies on the author to frame their article as a contribution to feminist IR, including its specific area of feminist IR. The author’s framing of the paper, not the number of cases or the countries of the study, determines whether an article is appropriate for publication in the IFJP.

  • How strict is the word limit and what does it include?

Submissions should be between 5,000 and 9,000 words inclusive of bibliography. Revised articles also have a limit of 9,000 words. Authors whose methodological approaches require up to 12,000 words are encouraged to contact the editors with an abstract and a concise but compelling argument for why the approach requires the longer exposition.

  • What does the review process entail for articles and how long does it take?

The Managing Editor reviews the initial submission for consistency with the journal’s submission guidelines.

Each submission is assigned to one of the four Editors-in-Chief (EICs). All final accepts and rejects are reviewed by a second EIC.

The assigned EIC reviews the initial submission for quality and consistency with the journal’s remit. This decision is normally made within days.

The assigned EIC then invites reviewers. The time to reviewers’ acceptance of the invitation to review can be quick; it can also be quite long. If the abstract is unclear, reviewers are reticent to accept. We assign between two and four reviewers on each paper.

Reviewers take on average less than a month to submit their reports. Special Issue submissions, Enloe Award nominees, and FTGS paper winner submissions are all expected to take longer.

The assigned EIC interprets the reviews and then writes a decision letter.

The revised version of a paper is treated in the same way as described above except that the reviewer time is faster because most reviewers of an original paper will agree to review a revised version.

If an article is rejected, authors should work with the feedback the reviewers have made and then submit to another journal. Authors should not submit to another journal until a rejection letter has been received.

If an article is accepted, it will be copyedited, typeset, published online, and queued for inclusion in a print issue.

  • Can I suggest and/or reject reviewers?

The topic and content of your article will determine your reviewers. We welcome the submission of a cover letter with your manuscript and you may include recommended reviewers in that letter. Please note that recommended reviewers should not be colleagues who will be familiar with your work. IFJP peer reviews are anonymous.

  • How do I submit a paper?

You should submit your paper through the IFJP ScholarOne Portal. Before submitting a paper online, make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, and format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

Language & Formatting

  • What are the formatting specifications of an IFJP article?

See the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

  • Does the IFJP have a protocol for the use of gendered or universal pronouns?

Authors should do their best to use the correct gender identity of those discussed in their articles. We also accept the use of universal “they,” universal “she,” and universal “he.”

  • Can I assume that my reader knows what I mean by “feminist lens,” “gender lens,” or other feminist phrases?

No. There are lots of feminisms. There is no “feminist lens” or “gender lens.” Consider situating your ontological, epistemological, or methodological framework in the context of the relevant specifics of the feminist landscape.

On a related matter, people do not necessarily read an article from beginning to end. They may skim it before they decide to read it. Avoid using terms defined in unique ways just for your paper and try to avoid acronyms (even acronyms that you define in the text) for your ideas. For example, WID for Women in Development is fine, but NFT for New Feminist Theory is not. Where an acronym seems necessary, be sure to define it at first use.

  • Does the journal have a policy about the use of passive voice?

The passive voice is a stylistic form of writing that often obscures agency. It can obscure your agency, the agency of the scholars you cite, or the agency of your research subjects. We do not have a policy about the use of the passive voice, but the articles of the IFJP need to be clear and the use of the passive voice generally makes writing about politics less clear.

Questions related to English-language dominance in a global feminist journal

  • Can I cite authors published in other languages, particularly in the theoretical framing/literature review of my piece?

The Editors-in-Chief of the IFJP are concerned about the dominance of English-language journals in citation indices as a matter of global and feminist politics (see e.g. The Dangers of English as Lingua Franca of Journals). We strongly encourage you to cite those authors who have developed the scholarship on your topic regardless of the language of that work. Your reviewers will likely be familiar with that work and would expect you to be aware of it.

  • If English is not my first language, what is the support for copyediting my piece? OR If English is not my first language, at what point should I pay for someone to copyedit my piece? 

The Editors-in-Chief of the IFJP are concerned about the dominance of English-language journals in citation indices as a matter of global and feminist politics (see e.g. The Dangers of English as Lingua Franca of Journals). As with all scholarship, your article will be reviewed by specialists in your field and these will likely include non-native English-speaking scholars as well. In order to ensure that language idiom isn’t an obstacle to comprehension, we will do our best to ensure that one of the reviewers is familiar with the first language of the author. When the English is such that the author’s point cannot be understood—that is, if the language is such that the intended scholarly contribution of the piece cannot be assessed—the paper will be rejected.

Therefore, as a matter of advice, before submitting your article for review, just as you would have a colleague in your field read your scholarship before submitting, you might ask a colleague for whom English is a first language to read for clarity and advise you on whether your particular piece needs copyediting for English idiom. If the scholarly merit shines through and your piece is accepted but language difficulties remain, you will be given a “Conditional Accept” decision in order to polish the language.

  • How does the IFJP reach a global audience, given that English-language dominance perpetuates and creates even more problematic language hierarchies?

After acceptance, authors are invited to submit abstracts in up to two languages in addition to the required English for all manuscripts. The author commits to copyediting, proofreading, and being responsible for the caliber and correctness of the languages.

  • Does the IFJP review books in languages other than English? If I know of a key text in another language, how can I bring it to IFJP's attention?

Yes. Please contact the Book Review Editor, Justin de Leon.

Revise & Resubmit decisions (R&R)

  • What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer?

Your reviewers have spent thoughtful time on your review. Your reviewers have probably read the paper more carefully than any other reader will. Not all reviewers have a gentle tone and even gentle-toned reviews can be tough to take. But take a breath, and try to think carefully about what they are trying to tell you. They may have misread something (in which case you should try to clarify it). They may have understood what you were trying to do correctly, but offered a constructive criticism with which you disagree.

You are the author. Your reviewers are helping you to get a piece that you submitted thinking that was ready for publication actually ready for publication. No matter what they say, you need to address their concerns by (1) changing what you say, improving the data, methods, or analysis, etc., (2) changing how you say or position it, or (3) explaining in the cover letter to the assigned Editor-in-Chief and reviewers why you did not do so. If you choose Route 3, try to take into account the time and intent of the reviewer.

Generally, revisions are less responses to little things. This is an opportunity to rethink your work in your own voice prompted by the reviewers’ suggestions.

  • How should I approach an R&R where the reviewers do not agree with each other?

Take very seriously your reviewers’ reflections. If they disagree, ask yourself: “What about my exposition and the field of feminist IR leads these reviewers to have different readings of (1) what I have done, and (2) what I should do to improve my paper in order to make it publishable?” Your Editor-in-Chief has read those competing reviews and may offer you guidance as to how to navigate those differences, but YOU are the author. You decide. You can explain your decision in the cover letter, but ultimately, the letter cannot replace addressing the underlying issue in the paper itself. So in the cover letter you might say, “R1 said xyz; R2 said abc. I take these to be different interpretations of the same problem with the paper which I understand to be efg, and so I have revised Section B to this end.” But the solution in the paper does not reference the competing reviewers, but rather learns from them, and speaks to them and to others.

Most of the competing interpretations of a paper that we see come from papers that have not articulated their main arguments with sufficient clarity and do not seem to have been through a significant engagement with the field in conferences or workshops. If you get competing interpretations that surprise you, you might consider finding a group of colleagues willing to discuss the paper with you before you resubmit it. If you do not have such an intellectual community, you might reach out to your Editor-in-Chief for guidance.

  • I have received an R&R from the IFJP. How finished should my paper be when I resubmit it?

Every time you submit to a journal, you should be submitting work that you understand is ready for publication. Sometimes an R&R gets a subsequent R&R (R2). There are three main reasons that this can happen: (1) when revising a paper, the author introduces new material; (2) one or both of the original reviewers was not available and a new reviewer reads with fresh eyes and sees something new; (3) one or more of the reviewers do not feel that the revisions are complete or satisfactory but do continue to believe that the paper will ultimately be publishable. Regardless, when you revise your article, you are not “fixing” the things that the reviewers have highlighted. Rather, you are rewriting your paper for publication. Do not submit your revision thinking “I hope this is what they want.” You are not writing for your reviewers. You are writing for the audience of the journal, always.

Most authors have a colleague read the reviews and the revisions before resubmitting.

  • How long do I have to submit a revised paper following an R&R decision?

Your R&R decision letter will give you a deadline. We would like you to complete these revisions by the deadline, but it is more important that you have the opportunity to do your best work. If you need more time, please respond to your letter with a proposed alternative date.

Rejection decisions

  • My paper has been rejected by another journal. Can I submit it to the IFJP?

YES! Every good article has a home. Maybe the IFJP is the home for yours. Read the journal and see if it has published work on your topic, with your methodology, or by authors that you cite in your paper. See if the fit is right.

  • My paper has been rejected by the IFJP. Can I submit to the IFJP again?

YES! But not the same paper. We encourage you to send us your next work. Every good article really does have a home. Although the IFJP wasn’t the home for your last article, maybe it is the home for your next one. Read the journal and see if it has published work on your topic, with your methodology, or by authors that you cite in your paper. See if the fit is right.


  • I have an idea for a Conversations article. Where do I send it? How complete does it have to be?

The Conversations Co-Editors are responsible for overseeing the Conversations section for each issue of the IFJP. The Conversations Co-Editors welcome individual inquiries, and are eager to explore innovative ideas for themes and topics. Laura McLeod and Megan Daigle are the outgoing Conversations editors. Please be in touch with the incoming Conversations Co-Editors to discuss proposed Conversations topics. You can contact them here: Catia C. Confortini and Natália M. Félix de Souza.

Submit your Conversations article through the IFJP ScholarOne Portal as per the normal submission process, taking care to indicate that it is a Conversations article as opposed to a normal article. Before submitting a Conversations article online, make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, and format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

  • What is the scope of a Conversations article?

The aim of the Conversations section is to offer space and opportunity to make strong theoretical and practical contributions to feminist debates that do not necessarily take standard academic forms. It typically includes interviews with prominent or early career scholars, practitioners, and activists; narratives and short stories; photo essays, artistic pieces, and poetry; and other “non-traditional” modes of scholarly writing. The Conversations Co-Editors work to encourage diversity of content in terms of format, topic, author location, and seniority.

  • How is a Conversations article different from a standard article published in the journal?

Conversations pieces are shorter in length (1,500–6,000 words) and do not necessarily work with conventional academic methodologies or formats. They may include references and should where appropriate.

  • Do pictures and other non-textual media count towards the word count?

Yes. A half-page image counts for 350 words and a full-page one for 500 words. When you submit, please include your images as separate files (not embedded in a Word document) with callouts in the text to show where you would like them to be positioned. It is also helpful if you include a separate document with captions for the images, including any information about permissions and credits to their creators that is necessary. Further information regarding images and non-textual media can be found in the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

  • How are Conversations articles reviewed? What can I expect to happen?

The Conversations internal review process is characterized by a collaborative process of thoughtful engagement and the provision of feedback by the Conversations Co-Editors. In cases where it is required, an external reviewer may be involved. The final submission is reviewed by an Editor-in-Chief. This process ensures that each piece is original, interesting to the IFJP’s audience, and of a publishable standard. We strive to provide feedback within three to four weeks of submission. Time of publication once the submission is accepted will vary, as it largely depends on the number and themes of other submissions. Conversations pieces are not peer reviewed and don’t “count” as peer reviewed.

  • How long should Conversations articles be?

Each issue the Conversation section is made up of two to four Conversations articles of 1,500–2,000 words each per issue.

  • What kind of poetry does IFJP consider for publication? 

The IFJP's Conversations Section is seeking poetry submissions that appeal to the aesthetic, sensory, and emotive aspects of experience. We welcome pieces that enable readers to “know” through experience in an aesthetic register. Like other Conversations pieces poetry submissions follow the normal internal review process and do not “count” as peer reviewed. Such process ensures that each piece appeals to a wide range of aesthetic and emotive sensibilities, and is interesting and moving to the IFJP’s audience in general.

Book Reviews

  • Can I volunteer to write a Book Review or Review essay?

Book reviews are widely read and can define the discursive dimensions of our field. Our reviewers make significant contributions to our intellectual community through identifying emergent and innovative literature, and through contributing to thoughtful and critical intellectual exchange, a function that is vital to the vigor of our discipline. We expect reviewers to (a) carefully identify the central features of the book’s contributions and analysis and (b) evaluate and locate the work’s contributions to the field or its particular subfield.

We welcome book review essay proposals on two or more books as well as reviews of individual books. Review essays can be on books published in any language. A single book review is about 750 words. The appropriate length of a review essay should be discussed with the Book Review Editor.

Contact the Book Review Editor, Justin de Leon, to propose the book or books you would like to review. Note, a “book” review essay might also include material that is published not only in books but also in articles as appropriate to the cutting-edge work discussed in the essay.

Submit your review through the IFJP ScholarOne Portal as per the normal submission process, taking care to indicate that it is a book review as opposed to an article. Before submitting a book review online, make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, and format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

Special Issues & Special Sections

  • I have an idea for a Special Issue. Where do I send the proposal? How complete does it have to be? 

The IFJP is part of the vibrant conversations about feminist IR and global politics and wants to support focused conversations on key topics. As such, the journal welcomes Special Issue/Section Proposals on topics related to the remit of the journal. We encourage those submitting such proposals to consider whether your subject and timing would recommend one Special Section (of 3-4 articles), two Special Sections appearing in two sequential issues, or one Special Issue which would take up the entirety of an issue and be expected to include a Conversations Submission and Book Review essay.

Number of Papers/Special Section: Normally the limit of the papers is around eight for a full issue. Please also be aware that we also accept proposals for Special Sections (about four papers); or two sequential Special Sections if you want to have more papers, but also want to have them in dialogue with each other across two issues. The latter format has the advantage of helping to drive traffic/interest to your work in a more ongoing way, and, of course, having two sequential deadlines rather than having to have all the papers ready at once. These numbers are based on an average article length of 8000. Please adjust your calculations in light of these numbers.

Timing: We do not have a set number of Special Sections or Issues we publish each year. We evaluate proposals as they come in. It is possible to have a relatively timely deadline for the Special Issue, but the timing has to take into account the authors' ability to meet internal deadlines, double blind peer review, and any associated revisions. Special Sections can generally be scheduled for print publication faster than Special Issues. Each article will be online once it is through production and thus available for citation before it is published in print.

Call For Papers (CFP): We are happy to receive proposals with an open CFP or those that arise from a working project among a specific set of authors. Your proposal should specify the desired timing of the call.

Editing: If your Special Section or Issue is accepted, one of the Editors in Chief of IFJP will be assigned to work closely with the submitting editor on the project. 

Virtual issue: Though it is not required, consider reviewing the history of the IFJP on your topic to propose a number of articles that can be re-released Open Access for a period of time surrounding the call and publication of your Special Issue.

 Colleagues interested in proposing a Special Issue or a Special Section are invited to contact the Editors-in-Chief at Please send in a proposal that includes the following elements:

  • The rationale for the issue

  • Contributions to the literature

  • Specification of Special Section, Two Special Sections, or one Special Issue

  • Proposed number of articles and length

  • CFP or the abstracts of proposed papers

  • Bios of editors/authors as appropriate

  • Proposed timeline

  • Any previously published IFJP material you would propose for simultaneous Virtual Issue

  • Possible books for associated book review section

  • Possible topics for associated Conversations section

  • Should I submit to a Special Issue/Section? How does the review process differ?

Before submission, Special Issue/Section authors should receive approval of the essay from the Special Issue/Section editor. Articles submitted for consideration for a Special Issue/Section will undergo the standard review process.

The first step in this process is a blind, in-house assessment by the editorial team to determine whether the submission is of sufficient quality and an appropriate fit for the journal. Every article submitted will be read and reviewed by an Editor-in-Chief and, if rejected, by a second editor. This process will usually be completed in the week following submission.
The second step is peer review. Those submissions that fall within the thematic focus for the Special Issue/Section and pass through the internal review process will be sent out for external review and follow the standard double-blind referee process. We typically seek three reviews and select a diverse group of scholarly referees capable of approaching a manuscript from a range of pertinent disciplinary perspectives. On average, our reviewers return their reviews within a month.

Finally, based on referee reports and their own careful readings of the article, the Editor-in-Chief and the Special Issue editor will then decide whether to accept a submission, reject it, or offer the author(s) the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript. Authors will have access to all reviewer reports, and will receive a letter from the editors clearly explaining their decision. All accept and reject decisions are reviewed by a second editor.

Website Materials

  • I have an idea for Where do I send it? How complete does it have to be?

If you have an idea for the website, particularly for our (soon to come) Virtual Engagements section, please contact the Editor of Digital Media, Annick Wibben. She is happy to discuss proposals, no matter how incomplete. 

Last updated January 6, 2019