Call for Submissions for Issue 4.1 Now Open
Deadline Monday 20th November 2017

At JAWS we do not set themes for issues. 

With many of the editorial team being practicing artists we are well aware of the limitations felt when galleries push the work to fit the exhibition. Instead we would just like to see your best (a bit like your mum but with a Freudian dark side).  

All submissions must be accompanied by an abstract of no more than a hundred words and a list of keywords relating to the piece (e.g. review, Sarah Lucas, eggs, Whitechapel Gallery). We seek critical reviews of performance, exhibitions and texts/ art-books, essays with arguments at their heart, self contained extracts from research journals and reflective theoretical writing. 

Perhaps you have read a text and you disagree with its core argument, or can suggest a new interpretation or have applied a theory in a new way, we want to hear it. We also welcome extracts from research blogs and ongoing projects as long as they can stand alone in context.

JAWS also seeks Images artworks, performance or process especially those connected to practice as research or visual enquiry 

• Please read the guidelines below carefully before submitting
• Submissions should be emailed as word documents to the Editor at Frank@jawsjournal.com. You can also contact us on Facebook or Twitter at the top of the page. For any further queries please email us or contact one of the JAWS team. 

---

Guidelines for Submissions

For a more thorough guide to laying out your submission please refer to the Intellect style guide

• All work must be prefaced with an abstract of no more than a 100 words and a minimum of  3 keywords (e.g. Marxism, Painting, Walter Benjamin)
• Please Include your University Affiliation, full name, Course and year of graduation 
• Written work of a review nature or opinion pieces should not exceed 3000 words
• Written work of theoretical, discursive, journal extract or similar would not exceeded 4500 words
• We also welcome short considered pieces of around 500 -1000 words for the online blog
• Extracts from research journals must contain self contained arguments. E.g. be understandable without relation to the whole body of work
• Authors are responsible for securing the copyright for any images used. Images must be high res (300 dpi min), cited appropriately and be available as jpegs separate to the text. Images may be reproduced in black and white
• Work must be original, copyright of the author and not have been published elsewhere (including in full on personal blogs). If the work is re-published then previous publication in JAWS must be cited. We do accept work previously submitted for academic assessment
• All work should be comply to Harvard referencing style (see the Intellect Style guide) and use footnotes not endnotes
•  Submissions to JAWS are subject to peer review and may be edited for length and clarity. 

Sadly, we cannot accept: 

• Creative writing
  
• Purely informative reviews
• Pub Crawl Adverts (unless it is an example of Guy Debord’s psycho-geography... in which case we’d love to read it)

Tips for Contributors 

• Consider your readers who might not be aware of the background of your subject. Technical language or precise academic terminology may benefit from footnotes
• Critical research papers are not the same as a journal article. For a start you will have to make significant cuts be prepared to be brutal with deciding which chapters summarise the core of your argument. All that original research is not wasted, for a start your tutors will read it and it informs the transformation of your essay into a paper
• Images must be free to be re-printed so cannot come scanned from a text or from the internet without the expressed permission of the rights holder. If you are writing a review and require images, most galleries will have stock press images that they will be happy to provide and for you to use. If you can obtain the permission through payment, let us know this (and how much it will cost!) with your submission
• If your submission is considered as a possible for publication, it will be read twice by two peer reviewers, one who knows your subject area (e.g. a fellow textiles student) and one who doesn't. They will add their comments and suggestions which will be collated by one of the editors and sent back to you for suggested adjustments to make it suitable for publication. It will then be proofed again by one of the editors to see if any further edits need to be made before it is entered into the pagination