Editors assess if submission fits the purpose and scope of the WAC Repository. If so, they send out submissions for review.
Two reviewers evaluate each submission for a recommendation (using review criteria): accept, accept with minor revision, accept with major revision, reject (a third reviewer will adjudicate contested reviews). Time allocated for review: approximately one month.
Editors send determination back to author(s).
Author(s) determine next steps and potentially resubmit or submit edits for acceptance. Time allocated for revision: two months.
Timeline for entire review process: between 4–5 months.
All WAC Repository editorial board members/reviewers read and commit to using ideas presented in Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors document (Link here). Reviewers should consider all submissions by utilizing these antiracist strategies featured in that heuristic:
Recognize a range of expertise and encourage diverse citation practices.
Recognize, intervene in, and prevent harmful scholarly work.
Establish and state clear but flexible contingency plans for review processes that prioritize humanity over production.
Make the review process transparent.
Value labor of those involved in the review process.
Commit to inclusivity among reviewers and in ed board makeup.
Specifically, for the WAC Repository, reviewers will…
Acknowledge the scope of and guidelines for articles submitted when considering what constitutes a fair critique and limiting feedback accordingly.
Use review criteria to determine acceptance and offer supportive comments and mentoring if revision is needed to better meet criteria.
Welcome and support a broad range of submissions and ideas to develop a broad and inclusive repository of WAC tools and strategies for use by all WAC practitioners.
Make acceptance criteria and review process transparent and deadlines/timelines flexible.
Ensure that all submitted materials reflect anti-racist and inclusive ideas and language choices in content and context as well as in accompanying reflective comments.
Respect the lived experience and embrace the variety of expertise represented by those presenting submissions, as explained further by WAC Clearinghouse statements on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Compose a brief (max 2 pages) letter to the author(s) explaining their determination based on these criteria. Reviewers may also include suggestions for revision to further improve the piece for future publication.
Review Criteria for Peer Review
Does this article clearly align with the purpose and audience for the WAC Repository?
Does this article fulfill the criteria listed in the description for its article type?
If citations are used, do those citations represent a diverse body of scholars, acknowledging some authors may be intentionally uncited because of oppressive or harmful actions? If citations are not used, is expertise communicated through other forms of evidence (i.e., lived experiences)?
Is this article accessible to a range of readers, including WAC administrators and professionals or various ranks, faculty across the disciplines, non-WAC institutional stakeholders and partners, and students seeking to learn more about WAC practice?
Does this article build on existing knowledge of WAC practice in local contexts, offering novel information to readers of the journal and adding to WAC community knowledge?