Peer Review: Digital Media

*Peer review guidelines originally developed by former Associate Editor David Gaertner

When assessing a Digital Media submission, please use the following categories:

1. SCOPE AND FOCUS
Is the subject within the scope of the journal? Does it serve as a concrete plain language and understandable visual/audio representation of its subject? What are the main themes? What larger conceptual or theoretical points are evident? Is this a new and original contribution?

2. PRESENTATION AND EASE OF USE
How well is the media organized and presented? Do the components (text, image, audio, video, geolocation …) work together to support the overarching theme(s)? Are there issues of accessibility that need to be addressed? Do users have to learn a new skill to use the tool? Is it easy to learn and navigate? Has the author demonstrated knowledge of the tool and used it appropriately? Are there issues of compatibility e.g. does the tool only run on a specific browser or OS?

3. SIGNIFICANCE
Is the media piece (and accompanying text) clearly situated within scholarly literatures? How strong is the correspondence between the contribution and the author’s argument? How significant is its contribution to understanding aspects of British Columbia?

4. GENERAL JUDGMENT
Do you have suggestions for improving the submission? Do you suggest amendments to the media or revisions to the textual component that will increase the value of the submission? Would the submission be more effective if reconceptualized, reorganized, shortened, or tightened up? Please be as specific as possible.

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

 6. RECOMMENDATION
According to your best judgment, please advise if the digital media piece should be:

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