Kairos uses a three-stage review process. First, editors decide if a submission makes sense for a review. Then, the entire editorial board discusses the submission (online) for two weeks, and reaches a consensus that is communicated to the author with detailed letters from the board. (Board members’ identities are public, so there is no secrecy about who reviews pieces.) Then, if appropriate, someone is assigned to work with the author to coach him or her on how to improve the piece prior to publication.
As Ball described the process, thousands of words are written about submissions, and lengthy discussions take place — all to figure out the best content for the journal. But there are no secret reviewers, and the coaching process allows for a collaborative effort to prepare a final version, not someone guessing about how to handle a “revise and resubmit” letter. —Humanities scholars consider the role of peer review | Inside Higher Ed.
Humanities scholars consider the role of peer review | Inside Higher Ed
Yesterday my stack of unmarked assignments was about 120, so this is not bad.
How to Disagree Academically: Using Graham's "Disagreement Hierarchy" to organize a colleg...
A.I. 'Completes' Keith Haring's Intentionally Unfinished Painting
Seton Hill students Emily Vohs, Elizabeth Burns, Jake Carnahan-Curcio and Carolyn Jerz in ...
Dr. David von Schlichten honors the spectrum of motivations (not always financial) feature...
Journalist flexes in story about Trump Media accountant who has spelled his own name 14 di...