About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Established in 1990, the Journal of the History of Sexuality is published by the University of Texas Press and illuminates the history of sexuality in all its expressions, recognizing various differences of class, culture, gender, race, and sexual orientation. Spanning geographic and temporal boundaries, JHS provides a much-needed forum for historical, critical, and theoretical research in this field. Its cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary character brings together original articles and critical reviews from historians, social scientists, and humanities scholars worldwide.
Back issues of Journal of the History of Sexuality are on sale to individuals at half price (plus international postage where applicable). Discount does not apply to the most recent volume and out-of-print issues. To order discounted back issues, please contact email@example.com.
Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Review: The journal employs a double-blind review process. Reviewers and authors will remain anonymous to each other.
Initial review: All essays received will be reviewed internally for suitability for publication, but only those of obvious scholarly quality that are centered on the history of sexuality will be sent for external review. In other words, essays must deal with historical rather than contemporary aspects of sexuality and attempt to illuminate the past rather than the present. If an essay describes literature, art, or film, for instance, it must emphasize the historical context of that literary or artistic production and shed light on the society in which it was produced. Essays focused on plot, narration, authorship, or aesthetics are not appropriate for this journal. Studies that investigate issues of sexual identity must be focused on its historical construction rather than a presentation of present-day concerns, though these can certainly be mentioned.
Peer review: The editor will initially select two peer reviewers whose areas of expertise coincide with the theme of the essay. (Reviewers are asked to complete their reviews within one month, but authors should expect this stage to take longer, since appropriate reviewers must first be found.) In the case of a split decision, the editor will consult members of the editorial board or seek a third anonymous review.
Final Decision: Based upon the referees' comments, the editor will make the final decision about the acceptability of the article and will provide the author with the reader reports. The possible final decisions are: "Accept Submission", "Revisions Required", "Resubmit for Review", "Resubmit Elsewhere", or "Decline Submission." Should the author choose to resubmit, a mutually agreed upon due date will be established, preferably not more than six months after the initial decision. The editor will normally ask the original referees to assess the revised manuscript.
Mathew Kuefler, Professor of History, San Diego State University
William N. Bonds, Professor Emeritus of History, San Francisco State University
Barbara Loomis, Professor of History, San Francisco State University
John Fout, Professor Emeritus of History, Bard College