Please submit your work as a Word document or share a link to a document (Google doc or Microsoft online) with Authors will be notified that their work has been received.


For the initial submission, authors should include embedded images within the document or as an additional pdf. Please include a list of illustrations with complete identifying information.

At the time of final revisions, authors are responsible for acquiring high-resolution digital images (at least 300 dpi, tiff or jpeg format). A folder will be provided to the author for submission. Authors should also ensure they have permissions from holding institutions and/or copyright holders to use the images in an online publication. Authors should consult with the managing editors if they have any questions or concerns.


Image Permissions for Accepted Articles

In cases where authors do not hold copyright, they should obtain permissions, pay any associated fees, and provide documentation of permissions to the editors. Authors should contact the editors for assistance if fees and permissions prove difficult. Links between images and copyright holders’ web sites (i.e. a link to the Morgan Library) can be accommodated if required.

While we have made every attempt to document the image source and acknowledge possible copyright holders, our use of these images for non-profit, educational purposes likely falls under the Fair Use exceptions of the Copyright Act of 1976. Furthermore, the majority of the works represented in the articles are clearly within the public domain. If we are alerted to any potential infringement, we will promptly remove the image in question.

Review Process for Submissions

In most cases, submissions will first be reviewed by the editors and then sent to external reviewers. Because the first stage of the external review will normally be blind, we request that authors remove all obviously self-referential language; however, authors do not need to remove citations of their own work. Following the first review, author and reviewer(s) will be introduced and encouraged to communicate and collaborate during the remaining review process. 

Different Visions believes that peer review should be an open, productive, and reciprocal process. Peer reviewers will be informed of the process, and will agree to open communication with the author (following the first stage of review) before they begin to review an essay. We expect peer reviewers to respond thoughtfully and offer the author constructive comments intended to improve the essay. Comments that are personal or inflammatory will not be tolerated. We expect reviews to be completed in a timely manner and that reviewers will let the journal know if an extension is needed.

These standards are adapted from the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Different Visions believes that peer review should be recognized publicly because it is important scholarly work. The following scholars have recently acted as peer reviewers for Different Visions: Jessica Barker, Marian Bleeke, Jennifer Brown, Bevin Butler, Heather Coffey, Lindsay Cook, Martha Easton, Shirin Fozi, Sarah Guérin, Tracy Chapman Hamilton, Alyce Jordan, Bryan C. Keene, Ellen Konowitz, Elizabeth L’Estrange, Sherry Lindquist, Kathryn Lynch, Janet T. Marquardt, Sara McDougall, Asa Mittman, Robert Mills, Julie Orlemanski, Dana Oswald, Mariah Proctor-Tiffany, Alexa Sand, Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg, Benjamin Tilghman, Karl Whittington, Beth Williamson, Karen A. Winstead, and Nancy Wicker.