WE ACCEPT ARTICLES ABOUT THE ARTS, ART WRITING, ART BOOKS, EXHIBITIONS, ARTISTS

Submission guidelines
  • Academic submissions up to 6000 words
  • Artistic Practice submissions up to 5000
  • Interviews up to 4000 words
  • Exhibition Reviews between 1000 and 3000 words
  • Opinion articles between 1000 and 3000 words
  • Articles’ word count includes notes and references. They do not include contributor’s details, keywords and abstract.
  • Images must be high res (300 dpi min), cited appropriately and be sent separately as jpegs
  • Make sure to include your bio, university affiliation, most recent programme and orcid number
Academic and Artistic Practice
  • Abstract of up to 100 words
  • 6 keywords
  • Introduction and Conclusion mandatory (but please don't title them as such)
  • Wikipedia is not a valid reference
  • Harvard Referencing system + Intellect Style Guide
  • Author needs to seek/have license to use images (if you can't get the license do let us know in case we are able to help)
  • Use footnotes not endnotes
Exhibition/Book Reviews
  • Details of the Exhibition
  • 6 keywords
  • Harvard Referencing system + Intellect Style Guide
  • Author needs seek/to have license to use images
  • Use footnotes not endnotes
Opinion + Interviews
  • Not peer-reviewed, edited by JAWS
  • 6 keywords
  • Harvard Referencing system + Intellect Style Guide
  • Author needs to seek/have license to use images
Visual Essays / Unconventional Submissions
  • Abstract of up to 100 words
  • 6 keywords
  • Harvard Referencing system + Intellect Style Guide
  • Author needs to seek/have license to use images
  • This is not creative writing - it still needs to have a critical backbone

Work must be original, copyright of the author and must not have been published elsewhere (including in full on personal blogs). We do accept work previously submitted for academic assessment.

Peer review process

JAWS maintains an international network of student peer reviewers, which is constantly​ in flux. We match our submissions with appropriate reviewers - a PhD submission will be matched with PhD peers from an adequate background of expertise.


Please see below the guidelines we give peers,

so that when you submit you know what are our criteria for reviewing.

ACADEMIC AND ARTISTIC PRACTICE SUBMISSIONS, EXHIBITION REVIEWS
Guidance for Reviewing


A recommendation will be made to publish with minor adjustments, publish with major adjustments, or do not publish.


  • Does the submission have 6 – 8 keywords and an abstract?
  • Is Harvard referencing followed?
  • Are there any typos or grammatical errors?
  • Is the submission clear in terms of what the subject being discussed is?
  • Are there any issues with the submission? How do you propose that the author could resolve these issues?
  • In your expert opinion, are there any fallacies in the submission (incorrect subject knowledge, logical errors, poor interpretations)? Are the arguments convincing?
  • Does the submission have a good structure and flow (is a ‘narrative’ clear)? Is the submission good in terms of readability?
  • Is the submission an appropriate length?
  • Is the introduction and conclusion effective?
  • Are the sources or data used in the submission of appropriate quality? Are the sources used critically?
  • Are the voices (and writing style) used in the submission appropriate?
  • Is the analysis used in the submission of decent quality?
  • Is the purpose of the submission clear? Is there a question that is answered?
  • Are there certain parts of the submission that require changes?
  • Are uncommon terms properly defined? Are different iterations of a term clearly referenced and defined in relation to the purpose of the essay? (i.e. if terms have different definitions for different authors, is this properly acknowledged?)
  • Do you think the article requires images?
VISUAL ESSAYS, UNCONVENTIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Guidance for Reviewing

A recommendation will be made to publish with minor adjustments, publish with major adjustments, or do not publish.Guidance for unconventional submissions


  • Does the submission have 6 – 8 keywords and an abstract?
  • Is Harvard referencing followed? (if applicable)
  • Are there any typos or grammatical errors?
  • What reasons are given for the use of experimental writing? Are you convinced that the reasons warrant use?
  • Does the author support the experiment in relation to any existing theories or artistic practice/artwork? – If the author has invented their own method and does not put it in relation to any existing work (philosophic, artistic etc), then the reasons the author gives should be subject to additional scrutiny. Where possible, an author should be encouraged to refer to existing work – artists don’t act in a vacuum.
  • If the experimental text is unclear, is there a legitimate reason why? i.e. if the text is aimed at expression, it is supposed to be ambiguous, the author is trying to do something extra-textual.
  • What do the artworks do in relation to the text? Is the alliance successful or does it fail to achieve what the author proposed?
  • Does the methodology clearly state the rationale of the experiment?
  • Is the methodology communicated through the documentation, positioning or sequencing of the artwork(s)?
  • The journal format presents certain limitations in terms of the way submitted artworks will be viewed. Have these limitations been considered in the submission?
  • Could the relationship between the materiality/temporal nature of the documented work and the digital/physical formats of the journal be improved?
This site was made on Tilda — a website builder that helps to create a website without any code
Create a website