Peer Review: SoundWorks Submissions
When assessing a SoundWorks submission, please use the following categories, developed by Associate Editor Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier.
1. GENERAL OBJECTIVES
Does the submission meet the submission criteria? Is the submission clearly connected to sonic expressions, phenomena, and explorations in/about/of British Columbia? How does this submission contribute to our understanding of British Columbia? Does the submission engage with sound studies? Is there a clear relationship between the written component and the sound piece?
2. SCHOLARSHIP AND METHODOLOGY
What conceptual and /or theoretical contribution does the submission make? Does the submission engage with questions /problems/methodologies that are relevant to sound studies and to other disciplines that engage with sound?
Does the submitted sound work offer something that text alone cannot? According to your own appreciation, is the sound clip appealing, did it stimulate your interest on the topic explored? Do you have any ethical concerns about the use of the sound clip that are not addressed by the author(s) in some way?
4. GENERAL JUDGMENT
Do you have any suggestions for improving the project? Can you suggest amendments to the essays and/or the sound piece that will clarify or increase the value of the project? Do you have any comments about the length of the sound piece or the essay? Please be as explicit as possible. Do you suspect any copyrights issues/problems with the use of the sound clip?
Will the project attract a broad readership/audience?
Please let us know whether, in your best judgment, the manuscript (sound and text) should be:
- published as it stands,
- published subject to satisfactory revision,
- resubmit for review,
- returned as unsuitable for publication in BC Studies