Peer Review 101 for Anime Scholars: What Editors Look For and Why

If you write about anime, manga, or fandom, sooner or later you will meet peer review. It might sound scary, like a boss battle at the end of the level. In reality, it is just a system where other scholars read your work and suggest how to make it stronger before it goes into print.

For anime and manga studies, peer review is especially important. Journals such as Mechademia and the open access Journal of Anime and Manga Studies (JAMS) use peer review to check that articles are careful, original, and worth adding to the field.

This guide is for students, fan scholars, and early career researchers who care deeply about anime. The goal is simple: show you what editors look for, why they care, and how you can grow from the process instead of fearing it.

What Peer Review Really Is For Anime and Manga Scholarship

Peer review is a quality check. You write an article, then other experts, your “peers”, read it and give feedback before a journal publishes it. In humanities fields, this often means close reading, theory, and cultural context, not lab data.

In anime and manga studies, those peers are often fans too. They know what a sakuga breakdown is, or why a single Studio Ghibli frame can matter. They share your passion, but they also protect the academic standard of the field.

From draft to decision: how the peer review process works

The journey starts when you submit your article to a journal. For example, the submission guidelines for JAMS spell out word counts, formats, and topics they accept. If you ignore these basics, the editor may desk reject your paper without sending it to reviewers.

Next, the editor checks if your topic fits the journal. A close reading of Attack on Titan might fit Mechademia, but not a journal on medical history. Fit is not about how “good” your paper is, it is about whether their readers will care.

If it fits, the editor chooses reviewers. Most anime and manga journals use double blind review, so you do not know who reviews you and they do not know who you are. This keeps the focus on the work, not your name, uni, or career stage.

Reviewers read your article, write comments, and recommend a decision. The editor then decides to accept, reject, or more often, invite revisions. “Revise and resubmit” is normal and often a good sign.

Why journals use peer review for anime studies

Anime and manga fandom is full of smart opinions. Social media, blogs, and video essays are packed with takes. Peer reviewed journals exist to create something different: research that has been tested and checked.

Peer review helps:

• keep standards high
• filter out copied or shallow work
• build trust in anime and manga studies as a serious field

For readers, it means they can cite your article in a thesis and know it holds up. For you, it means your work sits beside other scholars in spaces like Mechademia and JAMS, not just in a comment thread.

Reviewers are not enemies. They are fellow fans and researchers who want anime studies to grow. Their job is to push your work from “interesting idea” to “solid article”.

What Editors Look For In Your Anime Research Paper (And Why It Matters)

This is the heart of peer review: what your article actually does on the page.

A clear research question, not just a plot summary

Editors do not want a recap of Demon Slayer or Sailor Moon. They want a focused question or claim.

You can start from a fan thought, then turn it into research. For example:

• “Makoto Shinkai films feel lonely” becomes “How do Makoto Shinkai’s city backgrounds frame emotional isolation in young characters?”
• “Fans overreacted to the Neon Genesis Evangelion ending” becomes “How did early online Evangelion fan forums shape ideas of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ endings in anime?”
• “Ghibli is feminist” becomes “How do Studio Ghibli’s girl protagonists challenge or repeat older tropes of girlhood in Japanese cinema?”

When editors see a clear question like these, they know what your article is trying to answer.

Original insight and real contribution to anime studies

“Original” does not mean you must discover a lost OVA. It can be:

• a fresh reading of a popular series
• serious work on a lesser known title
• new fan data, such as survey results or interviews
• a new way of mixing theories and anime texts

Editors quietly ask, “What will readers learn from this that they did not know before?”

For instance, you might compare TikTok edits of Jujutsu Kaisen to older AMVs on YouTube to show how fight scenes are now remixed and felt. Or you might write the first English article on a niche josei manga and explain why it matters for stories about work and adulthood.

Strong use of evidence, not just opinions about your favourite series

Love for a series is welcome. Reviewers are fine with passion, as long as you back your claims with evidence.

Good evidence in anime and manga studies can include:

• close readings of key scenes or panels
• dialogue quotes
• described screenshots or storyboards
• production history or creator interviews
• fan posts, threads, and survey results

You then link this evidence to your claim in clear steps. If you say “Attack on Titan rewrites war memory”, you show the scenes, lines, or arcs that support that claim.

Proper citation is part of this. Journals like Mechademia even share a style manual for authors so you can cite anime, manga, games, and fan works in a consistent way. Copying text without citation is plagiarism, and reviewers take that very seriously.

Engagement with existing scholarship and theory

“Engaging with scholarship” sounds heavy, but it just means joining a conversation instead of talking alone.

You:

1. Read what other scholars have written on anime, manga, media, or Japanese culture.
2. Explain how your article connects to that work. Do you agree, extend, or question it?

For example, you might say that your reading of Puella Magi Madoka Magica builds on earlier work on magical girls, or that you adapt ideas from media studies to think about VTubers.

A helpful habit is to read recent issues of journals like Mechademia and the Anime and Manga research guide from a university library. This shows you what topics and methods are current, and how other writers frame their sources.

Fit with the journal, clear structure, and readable style

Editors also care about practical things:

• Fit with the journal: Check the scope and past issues. JAMS, for example, welcomes work on cosplay, fandom, and teaching, not only close readings.
• Clear structure: Intro with your question, well marked sections that build your argument, and a short conclusion. Topic sentences at the start of paragraphs help reviewers follow your logic.
• Readable style: Simple words, active voice, and short sentences work well. You can use theory, but do not hide behind jargon.

Clean editing and proofreading make reviewers feel they are reading finished work, not a first draft.

How To Survive Reviewer Feedback And Grow As An Anime Scholar

Feedback can sting, even when it is kind. The key is to treat peer review as long term training, not a verdict on your worth.

Reading reviewer comments without losing heart

When you get the report, do not open it at 1 a.m. on your phone. Give yourself time and a calm moment.

Read the comments once, then step away. Later, read again and look for patterns. Do both reviewers say your theory section is thin, or that you did not cite key work on shōnen battle manga? That pattern shows you where to focus.

Remember that rejection can happen for reasons beyond quality, such as topic fit or issue space. The journal might already have three isekai articles in that volume.

Treat the report as free expert coaching for your next draft, wherever you send it.

Turning feedback into a stronger anime article

A simple way to act on feedback:

1. Make a list of main points from the reviewers.
2. Decide how you will respond to each one.
3. Rewrite unclear sections, add missing sources, and cut parts that do not support your question.
4. Tighten your argument so each section clearly helps answer your main question.

When you resubmit, write a short response letter to the editor. Thank them, then explain what you changed and where. If you disagree with a point, say so politely and explain why.

Every anime scholar you admire has had harsh reviews, confusing comments, and rejected papers. You are joining that same story.

Conclusion

Peer review is not a wall built to keep fans out of “real” scholarship. It is a quality check and a learning tool that helps your best ideas about anime, manga, and fandom reach readers in a strong form.

Editors and reviewers look for clear questions, fresh insight, solid evidence, and clean, readable writing. They want to see work that adds something new to anime studies, whether you are writing about Studio Ghibli, VTubers, or a tiny doujin circle.

If you care enough to analyse anime deeply, you already have the starting point. Draft your article, read the journals, submit your work, and treat feedback as part of becoming a stronger scholar. The field needs more thoughtful voices, and yours could be one of them.