Writing

Rhizomatic Revolution Review

The Rhizomatic Revolution Review [061306] (R³) is a peer-reviewed journal, but what does that mean? What is the process of peer review, who does it, and how does it all work? Three of the R³ Editorial Board members have compiled some materials to help explain the who, what, and why of peer review and to answer your questions!

• Katie Hulme
• Snigdha Dutta
• Kelly King

Aims: To help/support/prepare current and future reviewers

• Describe the work accurately so reviewers know what to expect
• Show examples (with details hidden) of real (or mocked up) reviewer comments
• Provide an overview of key references to be familiar with in order to review for R3

Materials:

• Reviewer Guidelines: 
  • Condensed version
• Submission Guidelines
  • Condensed version 
• Journal Ops Manual
  • Condensed version

INTRODUCTION:

The quality of R³ relies on the feedback provided by our peer-reviewers. Our reviewers are tasked with evaluating a submission in detail, and delivering a comprehensive assessment to their managing editor. 

For many of our reviewers, this is their first experience conducting this type of review. The goal of this booth is to equip our reviewers with the tools they need to conduct a stellar review!

THE JOB:

Our current process is outlined below. Please note that this workflow is subject to change as we move forward and determine areas in which our process might be improved and streamlined.

Keep in mind that reviewer assignments depend on the types of submissions that we receive. You will be asked to review when a managing editor receives a submission that they believe suits your particular skill set and expertise. It is possible that you may go several weeks or months at a time without an assignment.

• You will receive invitation email from a Managing Editor to review a submission
  • You have 4 days to accept or decline this offer
  • Reasons for declining might be as follows:
    • You will be unable to meet the 14 day deadline
    • The submission is outside your area of expertise
• If you accept, you will be sent an email with instructions. This email will contain links to the following:
  • Reviewer Feedback Form (where you will enter your detailed comments)
  • Assigned Manuscript + Abstract
• Your review must be completed within 14 days of accepting the assignment. 
  • The review must be entered directly into the Reviewer Feedback Form, and consists of the following:
    • Recommendation:
      • Accept: No Revision Needed
      • Conditionally Accept: Minor Revision
      • Conditionally Accept: Major Revision
      • Editorial Decision Deferred: Major Revision with Full Review
      • Reject: Not suitable for R3. Refer to another journal
      • Rejection
    • General Feedback
      • Provides a general overview of the content; consider content effectiveness and merit in conversation with journal intent
    • Confidential Comments for the Managing Editor
      • There may be items you need to communicate to the Managing Editor that you do not wish to be passed on to the Creator. Comments entered in this section will remain confidential.
    • Specific (Line-by-Line) Feedback
• Notify your Managing Editor when your review is complete via email
  • Subject line: Review for AA00XX Complete
  • Be sure to CC TheR3Journal@gmail.com

EXAMPLES:

We have compiled a list of things to keep in mind as you conduct your review. Since it often helps to see tangible examples, we have included sample comments from peer-reviewers that demonstrate these points in action.

DO keep your tone professional, courteous, and respectful. 

You are called to critically assess the submission assigned to you, but concerns and recommendations need to be communicated with the appropriate tone. Be careful about making assumptions regarding the intentions of the creator, and try to frame your comments with their perspective in mind. Please refrain from belittling the creator, using sarcasm to communicate your point, or allowing anger or frustration to color your comments.

Here are a few sample comments that demonstrate critical feedback being communicated in a professional, courteous, and respectful tone. Pay attention to the language used by the reviewer, and how they ask questions to engage with the creator:

• “This is an important correlation to the present study that could receive some more attention. How does _______ understand what is a creating factor of identity, and how does this author understand and define identity? Is this the same way in which you define identity for the purpose of this article?”

• “For the term “______”. It is challenging to adequately explain what is the objective of the research or article in just a few words. Because of this, sometimes the words used become imprecise. It will be useful to define what ________ means. Are you recording data in some way? Is this just a registry, or are you also providing an analysis? In this case, I believe it would be okay to describe what you are going to do in more detail instead of searching for a term that adequately summarizes all you are trying to accomplish.”
• “You might have also done this already and decided that some of this information did not significantly contribute to the analysis. In this case, I would still argue that presenting the information as a table will provide the reader with a clearer view of your results.”

DO offer praise as well as concerns!

If there are things you really like about a submission, we encourage you to comment on these as well. As a creator, reading a review devoid of positive feedback can be extremely disheartening. It helps to know what you’ve done well in order to improve the areas where your work is weaker:

• “Great! This is what I would like to know for the other questions as well!”
• “Good point! It shows how carefully you constructed the questions!”
• “This is a good conclusion! I like the way you worded this part, it explains your research in very precise terms.“
• “This sentence makes an EXCELLENT point, and would be a great focal point for the essay — if the creator chose to do so, they would need to develop the sections for each artist to demonstrate the exact ways in which they prioritized and achieved accessibility.”

DO comment on major flaws such as a conclusion that doesn’t address the stated aim or goal.

We are accountable for the work that we publish. The quality of our publication reflects on both the creators as well as the editorial team. We must work together! If we don’t identify critical deficiencies in the manuscripts we publish, someone else will. As a reviewer, it is important that you pay close attention to the aims, methods/arguments, and conclusions and clearly articulate issues to the creator so these can be corrected. 

• “The thesis statement sets the tone for the essay, and should drive the content and conclusions of the essays. Much of the discussion regarding ________ is decoupled from this thesis statement and could be removed (or else needs to be tied in more closely).”

DO identify factual errors, invalid arguments, or logical flaws.

If you come across statements or arguments that do not make sense, are factually incorrect, or are not supported by the text, these should be brought to the attention of the creator: 

• “One major inconsistency that occurs very early in the writing is the reference to _______ in the Abstract, Keywords and later as a heading; whereas the content only discusses _______. If the author’s intent is specific to _____ then content needs to be added to reflect this, however if the focus is ________ then the abstract, keyword and heading should be amended accordingly.”
• “This part of your results description is a little bit unclear, and it does not match the figure X you included. Please note that (in lines X-X) X% of X is not half the amount that is X% of X – one is approximately X and the other is closer to X. Because your groups are so different in size, you need extra caution when creating comparisons between them. Also, in this same section, your data does not give you enough information to say that the participants _________.”
• “… therefore diluting the impact art is supposed to make” – this is the type of statement that needs supporting evidence. This could be a thesis statement around which to center an argument for an essay! However, since the essay has not yet established what “impact art is supposed to make”, it is difficult to argue that it has been diluted.”

DO be specific!

Use line numbers (or time stamps) to draw the creator’s attention to the section being discussed. In some instances, it may also be helpful to quote the exact phrase or wording that you are commenting on. You may receive a submission where you strongly disagree with the creator on specific points – when this occurs, you need to articulate exactly what you disagree with and why.

• “You have referred to the main character as ‘Demian’ when in fact his name is ‘Emil Sinclair.’ Max Demian is an important but secondary character.”
• “It is unclear whether the word “It” at the beginning of the sentence “__________” is referring specifically to the use of technology (and its impact on accessibility) or art.”
• “In the beginning of your paper you state, “I will then draw attention to some key aspects of interest in the campaign by applying__________.” It would be best to clarify what _________  is before going into the details you’ve written.“

DO comment on the appropriateness of citations (or lack thereof) and request that they be formatted in APA style if the creator did not do so.

The formatting for citations (APA) is clearly stated in the Submissions Guidelines. Our copy-editors will double-check citations prior to publishing, but it is the responsibility of the creator (not the copy-editor) to format them correctly. If the creator has not used APA style, please note this in your General Comments so that it may be addressed by the creator during the revision process. 

Please also comment on instances where you observe the following:

• The creator has quoted something but has not cited the original source
• The creator has made a statement that requires supporting evidence but has not cited any sources to support their claim
• The creator has omitted a key source, or their sources are out of date

Examples:

• “This quote needs to be cited in-text.”
• “The writer states “Music has historically ____________”. This statement would be much stronger with 2-3 historical examples to back it up. Declarative statements such as this need supporting evidence.”
• “But ________, led to a decline in attendance at “in-person events” — a statement like this needs supporting evidence. This could be achieved by citing 1-3 references of papers/articles demonstrating this to be true.”
• “All references and citations must be in APA format throughout.”
• “Consider more recent research articles and references where possible. For example, under the subsection, “___________”, __________, this reference is from 2008, and it is possible that there has been further and more recent research that can drive across the same point (e.g., _________).

DO keep potential audiences in mind (general public, subject experts, ARMY, etc) and provide guidance where additional explanation and background may be needed. 

The review should keep various audiences in mind and provide tangible direction to the creator on areas that may need to be expanded upon for clarity: 

• “Your text should be easily understandable even to a reader who is not super familiar with ARMY. In this section, it might not be clear to such a reader what is the relationship you see between social media engagement and fan dedication and how the accounts you mentioned exemplify this relationship. I think that explaining what these accounts do might easily fix this.”
• “The essay has a logical progression, academic value and strong implications. The sections are relevant and easy to follow. However, some of the terms used could be explained further as they might not be known to a reader with no knowledge about education.”

DO NOT focus too much time on correcting grammar, formatting, or style elements. Your expertise is needed in evaluating the content of the text!

All submissions will undergo a thorough review by our copy-editors prior to publication, and will be reformatted for online publication (so footnotes will become endnotes!). As the reviewer, we encourage you to comment on global or systemic issues that affect the comprehensibility of the manuscript, but you do not need to identify or correct instances of incorrect grammar, formatting, or style, as this is not the primary purpose of the review phase.

Comments such as the ones below are not inappropriate, but they are not as valuable to the creator and Managing Editor as those that address the substance of the manuscript:

• “The footnote moves over to page X resulting in a blank page.”
• “please fix layout, I think something might have glitched in the document because everything else in the essay is justified except this part.”

DO NOT leave the “Specific Feedback” portion of the review blank! 

A high-quality review provides detailed comments that address specific lines or paragraphs. This is particularly important for manuscripts that require major revisions. Tangible feedback is much easier for the creator to address than a vague and sparse review. Please remember that the Managing Editor is relying on your expertise and assessment to help guide their editorial decision. A comprehensive review is of great value!

The only instance where the “Specific Feedback” section might be left blank is for an article that is recommended for “Accept: No Revision Needed.”

RESOURCES:

Reviewer Guidelines in Brief

This is a very high-level summary of the Peer Review Guidelines. We recommend you read the full document before you submit your work. See above for R³ processes related to peer review, along with examples.

The purpose of peer review is to verify and validate the information and ideas presented in Academic Articles. This is done by peer reviewers who are experts in a specific field of study and/or who are experts in knowledge about BTS. These experts read each submission with a critical and questioning perspective to make sure that the facts presented in the submission are correct and the ideas are logical and presented in an analytical and objective manner.

Process:

1. First read:
   1. Main topic or thesis is present and clear
   2. The article is clearly written and readable
   3. Conclusions are consistent with main topic or thesis
   4. Tables, graphs, graphics support ideas in the text
   5. Errors in language and grammar do not impede comprehension
      1. A peer reviewer does not copy edit the submission
   6. Major flaws are absent or correctable
   7. Introduction is clear and concise
   8. Recommendation:
      1. Accept: No Revision Needed
      2. Conditionally Accept:Minor revision
      3. Conditionally Accept: Major revision
      4. Editorial Decision Deferred: Major revision with full review
      5. Reject: Not suitable for R3. Refer to another journal
      6. Rejection
2. Second read (if the reviewer believes the piece is within the scope of the journal and is worthy of publication with revisions, categories i through iv above):
   1. The second read is more focused on giving feedback to the writer based on the issues found during and after the first read. :
      1. Corrective suggestions for issues and flaws
      2. Praise for particularly effective sentences or sections
      3. Identification of:
         1. Unclear meaning
         2. Factual errors
         3. Invalid arguments and logical flaws or fallacies
   2. The introduction is of major importance, so it should be reread and re-examined to make sure it is clear, focused, and identifies the goals of the submission.
   3. The body portion will vary widely depending on the topic, but unclear meaning, factual errors, and invalid arguments should be identified.
   4. Plagiarism should be identified if found, but it is not the reviewer’s task to run a submission through plagiarism software.
   5. General feedback:
      1. Start with positive aspects of the work
      2. Include flaws and weaknesses; identify how these affect the work as a whole; offer suggestions for revision.
   6. Specific feedback: This is line-by-line feedback that identifies specific words, phrases, sentences that are problematic (or worthy of praise). Missing citations, unclear ideas or meaning, ineffective word choice, lack of flow or logical organization should be noted.
   7. Recommendation
      1. Accept: No Revision Needed
      2. Conditionally Accept:Minor revision
      3. Conditionally Accept: Major revision
      4. Editorial Decision Deferred: Major revision with full review
      5. Reject: Not suitable for R3. Refer to another journal
      6. Rejection

Submissions Guidelines in Brief

This is a very high-level summary of the Submission and Editorial Guidelines. We recommend you read the full document before you submit your work. 

R³ publishes three categories of works, shown in the table below:

Category and Sub-types	Description	Word/time limits
Academic Articles
Article*	Report of theoretical or empirical investigation, original research findings, and/or analyses of concepts or phenomena related to BTSMay be formatted as text, audio, or video	Text: <8000 wordsAudio/video: <30 minutesHybrid: equivalent of above
Essay*	Persuasive, argumentative, open-ended descriptive, expository, or narrative essay on a specific topic	Text: <8000 wordsAudio/video: <30 minutesHybrid: equivalent of above
Academic Review*	Authoritative literature review of a subject matter of importance to the BTS ARMY community	<20000 words, Audio:<90 min, Video:<90 min
Response*	Concise article articulating specific viewpoints on a controversial issue within the BTS ARMY community	Will vary by topic
Letter to the Editor	Critique, praise, or concern about a specific piece published by R3	Will vary
Creative Collections
Visual	Digital art, paintings, sketches, graphics, etc.	NA
Text	poetry, short stories (fiction), song lyrics, etc.	<10,000 words
3-D works	Statues, quilts, dioramas, jewelry, etc.	NA
Audio/video recordings	Performance, short films, etc.	Audio: <30 min, video: <30 min, hybrid submissions: must equate to <10,000 words in whatever form they take.
Supplemental Stories	Personal narratives about the writer’s own journey to and with BTS	<10,000 words

*These submission types will undergo peer review

Submission Requirements

1. Contact information for the submitting creator: email address
2. Full list of creators:
   1.  Creators’ institutional affiliations where the work was conducted (if applicable)
3. Abstract or Artist Statement: 
   1. Abstract: Paragraph (<500 words) that provides a quick overview of your topic. It should include your thesis or central idea and your key points.
   2. Artist statement: Brief introduction to your piece.
4. Keywords: 5 keywords that help identify your subject matter. Examples: Lyrics, analysis, psychology, Jung, comparison, etc.
5. Main Text/Audio/Video/Graphic with references
   1. If audio or video, must provide: Link to file, references, and written transcript
   2. References must be in APA style
6. Acknowledgements: Acknowledging contributors who are not authors.
7. Conflict of Interest Statement: Disclosure of any situation (stock ownership, personal relationship, employment, etc.) that would influence your objectivity.
8. Signed Creative Commons License Agreement [PDF]

Journal Operations Guidelines in Brief

This is a very high-level summary of the Journal Operations Guidelines. We recommend you read the full document to find information about the management and operations of R³. 

The R3 team includes:

• Editorial Board: Makes day-to-day decisions about journal operations; establishes the vision and goals for the journal
• Governance Board: Required by law for incorporation as a non-profit; oversees financial resources
• Advisory Board: Provides advice and counsel

The operations teams include:

• Approval committees to review applications to work with the journal
• Selections committees for Creative Collections and Supplemental Stories
• Managing Editors who manage the workflow for each submission, including recruiting reviewers and communicating with creators
• Reviewers in various fields of study who apply their expert knowledge to review each submission
• Copy Editors who ensure the text published by R³ is free of errors in language

The Editorial Board may take disciplinary action in regard to any member of the journal for a variety of issues, including missing deadlines and violating the Non-Disclosure Agreement. This process is outlined in the full document.

The Editorial Board and the Advisory Board will hold semi-annual meetings. Other meetings may be added as required.