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
What have my students learned about creative nonfiction writing? During class they are col...
There’s No Longer Any Doubt That Hollywood Writing Is Powering AI
I’ve been teaching with this handout for over 25 years, updating it regularly. I just remo...
Sorry, not sorry. I don't want such friends.
Despite its impressive output, generative AI doesn’t have a coherent understanding of the ...
I was perhaps a bit more conversational and chipper than usual during class today. A grinn...