We acknowledge that we live and work on unceded Indigenous territories and we thank the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations for their hospitality.
Peer review guidelines developed by Associate Editor David Gaertner.
Is the subject within the scope of the journal? Does it serve as a concrete plain language and understandable visual/audio representation of its subject? What are the main themes? What larger conceptual or theoretical points are evident? Is this a new and original contribution?
How well is the media organized and presented? Do the components (text, image, audio, video, geolocation ...) work together to support the overarching theme(s)? Do you see issues of accessibility that need to be addressed? Do users have to learn a new skill to use the tool? Is it easy to learn and navigate? Has the author demonstrated knowledge of the tool and used it appropriately? Are there any issues of compatibility e.g. does the tool only run on a specific browser or OS?
Is the media piece (and accompanying text) clearly situated within scholarly literatures? How strong is the correspondence between the contribution and the author’s argument? How significant is its contribution to understanding aspects of British Columbia? How broadly based will its readership be? Will the project attract a broad readership / audience or potentially new readership/audiences to BC Studies?
Do you have any suggestions for improving the submission? Do you suggest amendments to the media or revisions of the textual component that will increase the value of the submission? Would the submission be more effective if reconceptualized, reorganized, shortened, or tightened up? Please be as explicit as possible.
According to your best judgment, please advise if the media piece should be:
a) Published as it stands
b) Published subject to satisfactory revision
c) Resubmitted for review
d) Returned as unsuitable for publication in BC Studies