Peer Review Process

The Mailer Review is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly review while recognizing the distinct purposes of the different forms of work it publishes.

Research Articles submitted to the journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. Each article is reviewed by at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are asked to assess the originality of the submission, its engagement with existing scholarship, the clarity and coherence of its argument, and its contribution to the field. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editors may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Authors may be asked to revise and resubmit their work in response to reviewer comments. Final publication decisions are made by the editors.

Other sections of the journal, including Notes, Review Essays, Book Reviews, Interviews, Creative Works, Bibliography, Remembrances, Archival Materials, Works by Norman Mailer, and Classic Interpretations, are reviewed by the editors. When appropriate, submissions to these sections may also be evaluated by external readers. These contributions are not subject to formal double-blind peer review.

The editors seek to ensure that all published material meets standards of scholarly integrity, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s mission. Conflicts of interest are managed by assigning submissions to editors or reviewers with no personal or professional involvement with the author or project.

The Mailer Review aims to conduct its review process in a fair, constructive, and timely manner. While review timelines may vary depending on the nature of the submission, the editors strive to keep authors informed throughout the process.