Our reviewers use the following rubric for long-form content and short-form scholarly content. If you would like to learn more about our criteria and review process, refer below.
|Criteria||Questions to Ask||Evaluations to Consider|
|Currency / Timeliness||When was the piece created?|
Dose it refer to a historical or current event?
Dose it participate in a conversation that would be considered a hot topic?
Is the material or research “dated”?
Have there been significant developments that affect the current information or understanding of the piece in question?
What is the piece created in response to?
|Pay attention to when the piece is written, and if there are any source, attend to the date of these sources as well.|
If the focus is a “hot topic”, consider whether the piece adds something meaningful to the conversation, or if it is a review of the conversation itself.
If there are gaps or developments that have not been mentioned, consider whether the addition of this would significantly change the thesis of the piece.
|Relevance||Does the piece contribute to the conversation around human rights?|
Is it accessible and applicable to Journal readers?
Is the analysis superficial, or substantive?
Would you recommend it to your creative, collegial or scholarly community?
Would you reference/cite the piece or the sources used in your own work?
|Stakeholders – Consider who the stakeholders are in relation to the piece. Why and to whom does it matter?|
|Authority||What do you learn about the author’s experience, credentials, affiliations and background from the piece?|
What do you learn about the author’s position relative to the stakeholders?
What are the author’s assumptions about their subject matter and their audience?
|Accuracy||Where does the information come from? What is the piece’s message or claim in response to?|
Is the claim supported by evidence? Is that evidence documented?
Is the message supported by the form of the piece?
Are references to outside sources, events, people or inter-textual references verifiable and correct?
Are there any typographical, spelling, or grammar errors?
If any multi-modal elements are used (tables, images, audio visual clips, etc), are they documented and do they support the message or claim?
|Accuracy looks different in different genres, but boils down to correct, verifiable representation of context, circumstance, sources, people, places, events, and clear line of connection (sequitur) between the elements of a piece and the message.|
|Purpose||What is the creator of the piece going for? To inform, teach, entertain, persuade, raise awareness, etc?|
Is the tone appropriate to the purpose? To the Journal’s mission?
What is the point of the view and is it appropriate to the purpose?
Are there implicit or explicit disclosures of political, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases, and if so, are they appropriate to the purpose of the piece?
|Genre||What is the genre and what are the conventions of the genre?|
Is the methodology clear and in line with the disciplinary or genre specific conventions?
|This is where different genres and different disciplines produce different questions. For example, for a poem: how does the language, diction and form all support the overarching idea / mood of the poem? For a photo essay, how do the photos form a cohesive narrative, are they well documented and clearly captioned? Some of these questions will bleed into Clarity of Presentation.|
|Clarity of Presentation||Does the creator show awareness of genre-specific conventions?|
Is the design / presentation of the piece intentional?
Do the creator’s choices produce an effect on the audience that is in line with the Journal’s mission?
Is there an original title and does it reflect the content of the piece?
|When reading a piece by an author whose first language is not English, consider whether the argument, logic, or presentation is strong and recommend that the author have an English-language editor review their work.|
Attend to any aspects of the piece where it is hard to understand why and what effect the creator is going for.
Questions aimed to help the author / creator think about and articulate their choices are helpful.
As reviewers, we strive to use a fair and anonymized process in accordance with the following flowchart: