How publishing works in this field
Literary studies is argued rather than reported. The contribution is an interpretation defended against existing readings, so the literature review is not a formality but the place where the gap is established. Length expectations are higher than in the sciences, and style guides — MLA, Chicago — are enforced closely.
Linguistics publishes much more like a social or cognitive science, with datasets, statistics and increasingly preregistration. Corpus and experimental work is expected to deposit materials, and language documentation has its own archiving norms and consent requirements for speaker recordings.
What slows papers down here
Quotation permission catches literary scholars out. Extended quotation from in-copyright poetry and prose often exceeds fair dealing, rights-holders can refuse, and open-access licensing needs broader permission than print. Estates for twentieth-century writers are frequently restrictive.
In linguistics, the recurring objection is undisclosed analytic flexibility and insufficient reporting of speaker and item sampling — how participants were recruited, what the exclusion rules were, and whether items were counterbalanced.
Worth reading next
Questions we are asked in this field
There is no safe word count — it depends on proportion, purpose and jurisdiction. Poetry is especially restrictive because a few lines can be a large share of the work. Ask the publisher early, and remember that open-access reuse needs wider rights than print.
In linguistics, increasingly yes, with an archive appropriate to the data type. Speaker recordings carry consent and anonymity constraints that must be reflected in both the consent form and the deposit terms, so plan this before collection.
Many sit in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, which historically carried no JIF, and the two-year citation window does not describe a field that cites across decades. Standing in literary studies is carried by the journal's reputation, not a number.