Journal Of North African Studies

So You Want to Publish in the Journal Of North African Studies

I spent about three years chasing publication in area studies journals before I got into Journal Of North African Studies in 2019. The rejection-to-acceptance ratio is brutal, and a lot of people submit papers that simply aren't a fit. Here's what I learned from reading the feedback I got back from three separate rounds. It's a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal published by Taylor & Francis. The scope covers Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and sometimes Sudan and the broader Maghreb region. Politics, society, history, culture, economics — anything that fits goes, but the bar is specificity. They don't want broad sweeps or textbook-style overviews. They want original research with a clear argument, solid primary sources, and engagement with existing debates in North African studies. The impact factor hovers around 0.7 to 0.9 depending on the year, which puts it firmly in the mid-tier of area studies journals. That doesn't mean the work is bad. It means the readership is niche and citations come slowly. If you're looking for a high-impact boost for your CV, this isn't the target. If you're trying to make a real contribution to scholarship on the region, it's one of the more respected venues available.

The Submission Setup

The journal uses Taylor & Francis's standard online submission portal. You create an account, fill in the metadata, upload your manuscript, and optionally suggest reviewers. I'd recommend suggesting reviewers, but don't be lazy about it. People who suggest three co-authors from their own university get filtered out immediately. Pick real scholars who have published on North Africa in the last five years and are unlikely to have a conflict of interest with you. Formatting is standard Chicago style for footnotes and bibliography. They prefer the Humanities style. Use it. Don't cut corners on citations. I've seen manuscripts come back for incomplete references — not for style nitpicking, but because they use missing citations as an easy proxy for "this author hasn't done enough reading."

What Actually Gets Accepted

From my own experience and watching what comes through the other side, the winning papers share a few traits. They open with a clear problem statement — not a landscape description. They ground their argument in primary sources when possible, whether that's archival work, oral histories, field interviews, or qualitative data. And they engage directly with the literature on North Africa rather than treating the region as a blank canvas for a theory developed elsewhere. One thing that surprised me: the editors consistently reject papers that use North Africa merely as a case study to illustrate something about another region or a general theory. The paper needs to matter for North African scholarship first. Secondary benefit to broader debates is fine, but it can't be the other way around.

A Real Problem I Hit

During my second submission cycle, I got a very specific note that almost derailed the whole process. A reviewer objected to my use of colloquial Arabic interview transcripts, arguing that they should be translated into formal MSA for publication. This was a genuinely difficult point because my research was specifically about how speakers code-switch in political discussions, and rendering everything in MSA would have destroyed the data I was analyzing. The workaround was to provide both versions: the original transcript alongside a formal translation, with inline commentary explaining where the code-switching occurred. I also wrote a brief methodological appendix explaining why the vernacular was central to the analysis. The editor accepted this after the first revision round. It added about three pages and two weeks of work, but it resolved the objection cleanly.

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall one: overstating generalizability. People love to claim their findings on, say, Tunisian civil society reveal something universal about authoritarian resilience. The reviewers will call that out. Keep your claims tight to the case and let readers decide if it travels. Pitfall two: ignoring recent North African scholarship. The field has shifted significantly since the 2011 uprisings. If your paper treats North African politics as if it's still 2008, you'll get a very polite but firm rejection. The journal expects awareness of post-2011 developments even when the paper's focus is historical. Pitfall three: submitting during peak review slowdowns without patience. Review timelines typically run 4 to 8 months. During the summer months, especially July and August, things slow down further. I once waited 11 months for a first decision because the handling editor was swamped and the two external reviewers were unreachable. Don't chase. Check the portal status every three weeks and send a single polite inquiry if nothing moves in four months.

The Downsides

Let's be straightforward about the limitations. The journal has a narrow geographic focus that excludes the Sahel and Horn regions entirely. If your research touches on Libya or Sudan and frames it through a wider lens, this might not be the right fit. The publication timeline is also long — expect at least six months from submission to online appearance even on a smooth track, and a revised manuscript can easily take a year and a half total. Open access is available through Taylor & Francis but the APC runs roughly £2,000 to £2,500 depending on your institutional agreement. If you don't have funding for that, the traditional subscription model works fine, but your readership will be limited to institutional subscribers.

Alternatives to Consider

If the geographic scope feels too narrow, Medien und Zeitungskunde or Arab Media & Society might suit if your angle is media or culture. For political science-heavy work, Middle East Journal or Journal of North African Studies competitors like Contemporary Arab Affairs cover the region. For historical work, International Journal of Middle East Studies is the heavier hitter but harder to break into. The honest advice is to read three recent issues before you write a single word of your proposal. Not skim. Read. You'll quickly see whether your paper sounds like it belongs in that conversation. If it doesn't, revise it or pick a different journal. Wasting six months on a rejection you could have avoided with ten hours of reading is the most common mistake I see.