Open Review Guidelines
- Clearly define roles and expectations of the participants – editors, writers, reviewers
- Anyone can sign up for an account – to be a reviewer or writer.
- Reviewers must demonstrate their credentials as a “peer reviewer”, with at least a doctorate degree.
- They must also be willing to have some of their credentialed information become public knowledge (i.e., their field of expertise, number of years in the field, number of publications, etc.).
i. The intent here is not to provide so much information that a writer can identify the reviewer, but to offer some idea of what the reviewer brings to the table, both in credentials and in perspective.
- Reviewers must request which types of work they would like to review (historians might review history, anthropology, sociology, etc.).
- Reviewers will agree to maintain a professional and civil tone in all comments. Reviewers further agree that editors may restrict any comments that they deem unprofessional.
- Reviewers will cover each of the following areas in each piece of research:
- depth of argument, and
- the ability to communicate connections. (these thoughts are pulled from Open Review article)
- Writers submit works anonymously for review.
- By submitting research for review, writers agree that if accepted, the work may be published. Writers also agree that all works submitted for review will not necessarily be published.
- Editors select works based on current conversations in the academic field, new research or theories.
- Editors have final word on required revisions.