Peer Review: Scholarly Podcast Submissions

When assessing a Scholarly Podcast, please use the following categories[1]

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? What larger conceptual or theoretical points does it make? 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 /problems/methodologies/scholarship that are relevant to the field of a) its topic and 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?  Does it contribute to knowledge by presenting new research, by offering a new perspective on familiar material, or in some other manner? How significant is its contribution to understanding British Columbia?

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

4. TECHNICAL SUITABILITY

Is the audio production cleanly edited and listenable?  Is there static or distracting background noise? Do you have other suggestions for improving the “listenability”?

5. SONIC CONTRIBUTION

How does the podcaster make use of the medium and genre?  Have they done so effectively? Does the audio format contribute to the scholarship? Does the podcast offer something that text alone cannot?  How does this podcast demonstrate the potential of the medium for scholarly dissemination? Does the author incorporate background noises, sounds, music, and prominent sounds?

6. TEXTUAL COMPONENT

Does the abstract and bibliography provide a helpful scholarly apparatus to support the podcast? How well does the abstract convey a sense of the podcast’s argument and/or sonic sensibility?

7. GENERAL JUDGMENT

What are your suggestions for improving the podcast? Do you have suggestions regarding length, structure, content, or argument that would make the podcast more effective?  Do you have suggestions for additions or deletions?  Please be as explicit as possible.

8. RECOMMENDATION

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

• • published as it stands,
  • published subject to satisfactory revision,
  • resubmitted for review,
  • returned as unsuitable for publication in BC Studies

[1] In drafting these guidelines we were inspired by the podcast peer review questions written by Siobhan McMenemy, Senior Editor for the Wilfred Laurier University Press.