Editor Interview: Broad Ripple Review

Emotionally resonant work

Kenyon Review, New England Review, The Georgia Review, Copper Nickel, Boulevard, The Common, Willow Springs, Ploughshares, CRAFT, Passages North, Shenandoah, One Story, and so many more.

We are drawn to writers whose work is emotionally resonant, structurally intentional, and precise at the line level. Some writers who continually inspire our editorial mindset are: Ocean Vuong, Carmen Maria Machado, Brandon Taylor, Lauren Groff, Alexander Chee, Esmé Weijun Wang, Kaveh Akbar, Garth Greenwell, and Hanya Yanagihara.

What sets Broad Ripple Review apart is our care for the writer. We are highly selective and intentional with the work we publish, but we approach every submission with gratitude. Free submissions matter to us because we believe that access to literary spaces should not depend on the ability to pay. We rely on tip jar donations and optional editorial feedback services to generate honorariums, which allows us to pay contributors without placing a financial burden on submitters.
Our responsibility does not end at publication. We carry the work into the world with seriousness and continued advocacy. We promote our contributors on social media, feature their work beyond the issue, and remain invested in their creative trajectory. We believe that literary publishing should be relational, not transactional. When we accept a piece, we are committing to championing that writer, not only in our pages but as their career evolves.

The best advice we can offer is to send the piece that feels true to you. We welcome work from writers at all stages, and we read every submission with attention and gratitude. We would love for submitters to be readers as well, because reading the journal is the clearest way to understand our editorial sensibilities. However, we also recognize the reality of the literary world: it is impossible for any writer to read every publication. If you are unsure whether your piece is a fit, we would rather you send it and allow us the privilege of considering it. It is an honor to be entrusted with work that carries personal meaning, and we treat that responsibility with care.

The ideal submission is emotionally resonant and crafted with intention. It demonstrates precision at the sentence level, but it is not showy or clever for its own sake. Structure is purposeful and inseparable from meaning. The piece risks something emotionally, intellectually, or formally, and it engages complexity rather than arriving at an easy conclusion. It reveals rather than explains. Most of all, the ideal submission carries a sense of inevitability, as if no other form, voice, or shape could hold it.

We keep our guidelines intentionally sparse because we want the process to feel welcoming. We do not want rigid rules that create barriers for writers. A common misunderstanding is that sparse guidelines mean that formatting is flexible. In reality, single spaced submissions are very difficult to read when we are reviewing many pieces. Double spacing helps us give each piece the focus it deserves.
Another pattern we see is that submitters sometimes reply to a form rejection and request feedback, even when we offer a paid feedback category for that purpose. We would love to respond to every request, but our volume of submissions makes that impossible. The paid feedback category exists so that writers can receive thoughtful editorial notes, and the funds from that category go toward paying contributors. Editors do not profit from that service.
We also endeavor to have fast turnaround times. We read and filter submissions daily out of respect for our writers and their time. Occasionally a quick response triggers confusion or frustration from submitters who assume that a faster decision reflects a lack of attention. In truth, it means the opposite. A submission is prioritized as soon as we open it. A quick response is never a dismissal of the work. It is simply the result of an editorial team that values timeliness and consistency.
On rare occasions we receive submissions or messages that are unkind to our editors, including dismissive comments about pronoun fields or required content warnings. We take care of writers, and we ask that care to be mutual.
These moments are the exception. The overwhelming majority of writers who submit to us are gracious, thoughtful, and invested in literature. We are grateful for the trust they place in us when they send their work.

We do not read for credentials. We only reference bios or publication history if we are preparing to publish your work. While we do not read blind, we do not allow outside information to shape our editorial judgment. A debut writer has the same chance as someone with a long list of credits. What matters is the emotional resonance, structure, and craft of the piece itself.

We read each submission with the aim of giving it a fair and thoughtful evaluation. Our focus is on understanding the work on its own terms and determining whether it aligns with our editorial vision.

After submission, editors organize and assign pieces to our reader panels. Every submission is read with care and discussed among readers. Pieces that resonate with the panel move forward for consideration. The final decision is based on both the strength of the piece and whether we can honor it within the context of the issue. We want each piece to have space to breathe and to be in conversation with the work around it.

I work on Broad Ripple Review every single day. Some days I am reading submissions, responding to reader recommendations, or reviewing copy edited work. Other days I am working directly with writers as we shape a piece for publication. The work also includes social media, website updates, newsletters, event planning, and promotion of the issue and our contributors. Although we have a wonderful editorial team, it is the editor who has to keep the work moving and hold the vision for each issue. The role is creative, administrative, and logistical. It requires attention to detail and a commitment to carrying each piece with care from submission to publication and beyond.

We edit with care and intention, not intrusion. Most accepted pieces require light to moderate line editing for clarity, rhythm, or precision, and we always work in conversation with the writer. Our goal is not to change the piece, but to help the piece become the clearest version of itself. The writer always has the final say.

Yes, we nominate for all major awards.

Broad Ripple Review is funded through a combination of community support and private donations. We keep submissions free because we do not want cost to be a barrier for writers. Our funding comes from voluntary tip jar donations, our optional paid editorial feedback category, and private financial support from individuals who believe in our mission. All funds are used to pay contributors and sustain the publication. Our editors and readers volunteer their time because we believe writers deserve a space that treats their work with care.

We promote our contributors with the same care we bring to reading and editing their work. We feature every piece across our social media platforms, our newsletter, and our website. We highlight contributors before, during, and long after publication. We also share updates about awards, future publications, or any recognition related to their work, even when it appears in other journals. Each year, we attend AWP and use that opportunity to feature our contributors, connect them with readers, and expand the reach of their work. Our goal is not a single announcement. Our goal is sustained support. When we publish a writer, we commit to championing their work beyond the issue.