Once a submission has been made to the Repository's submission portal, the Repository editorial team will determine whether the submission fits the purpose and scope of the Repository. If so, the submissions will be sent out for review. Generally, two reviewers will evaluate each submission for its fit with the mission of the Repository. The reviewers will recommend that the submission be accepted, accepted with minor revision, asked to be revised and resubmitted, or rejected. In the event of a lack of agreement by the reviewers, a third reviewer will be asked to assess the submission. We ask reviewers to return their recommendation within four weeks.
All WAC Repository editorial board members/reviewers have read and are committed to using ideas presented in the statement on Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors. We encourage authors to read the statement prior to submitting their work. Some of the key strategies discussed in the statement inlcude:
- Recognizing a range of expertise and encouraging diverse citation practices.
- Recognizing, intervening in, and preventing harmful scholarly work.
- Establishing and stating clear but flexible contingency plans for review processes that prioritize humanity over production.
- Making the review process transparent.
- Valuing the labor of those involved in the review process.
- Committing to inclusivity among reviewers and in editorial 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.
- 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 (no more than 1,000 words) message 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.
In turn, the WAC Repository editorial team will:
- 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.
Review Criteria for Peer Review
Reviewers will be asked to use the following questions as they assess materials:
- Does the submission clearly align with the purpose and audience for the WAC Repository?
- Does the submission 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 the submission 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 the submission build on existing knowledge of WAC and/or writing studies practice in local contexts, offering novel information to readers of the journal and adding to community knowledge?