Peer Review: Podcasts

*Peer review guidelines developed by former podcast coordinator Isabelle-Avacumovic-Pointon and editor Paige Raibmon; inspired by the podcast peer review questions written by Siobhan McMenemy, Senior Editor for the Wilfred Laurier University Press

When assessing a Scholarly Podcast, please use the following categories:

1. OBJECTIVES AND MAIN ARGUMENTS
Is the subject of the podcast within the scope of the journal? Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect its content? What are the podcast’s objectives and main arguments? How does the podcast contribute to our understanding of British Columbia?

2. SOUNDNESS OF SCHOLARSHIP AND METHODOLOGY
What conceptual and /or theoretical contribution does the podcast make? Does the podcast engage with questions and/or scholarship that is relevant to the field of a) its topic and/or b) scholarly podcasts, sound studies, digital humanities, or other related discipline(s)?  If you are aware of other podcasts in the field, how does this one relate to them? How well is the podcast researched, argued, and organized? Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the evidence? Are the references in the audio and text files adequate and necessary?

3. SIGNIFICANCE
How important is it that this podcast be published? In what ways is this a new and original contribution to knowledge? How significant is its contribution to understanding British Columbia?

4. AUDIENCE
Who is the audience for this piece?  Will it attract broad and/or potentially new audiences to BC Studies? Is the podcast likely to appeal to non-academic listeners?

5. TECHNICAL SUITABILITY
Is the audio production cleanly-edited and listenable? Do you have suggestions for improvements?

6. SONIC CONTRIBUTION
Has the podcaster made effective use of the podcast medium?  Does the audio format contribute to the scholarship? Does it offer something that text alone cannot?  Does the author incorporate background noises, sounds, music, and prominent sounds?

7. TEXTUAL COMPONENT
Does the textual component and bibliography provide a helpful scholarly apparatus to support the podcast? How well does the text convey a sense of the podcast’s argument and/or sonic sensibility?

8. GENERAL JUDGMENT
What are your suggestions for improving the podcast and/or accompanying text? Do you have suggestions regarding length, structure, content, or argument that would make the podcast or text more effective?  Do you have suggestions for additions or deletions?  Please be as specific as possible.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Please let us know whether, in your best judgment, the podcast should be:

• Accept Submission,
• Revisions Required,
• Resubmit for Review,
• Resubmit Elsewhere, or
• Decline Submission