Jackson School Journal
of International Studies

Reviewing Guidelines

 

We accept applications to become a peer reviewer on a rolling basis. To apply, email us at jsjis@uw.edu!

The Jackson School Journal depends on a core group of peer reviewers to refine its selection process and encourages any undergraduate with an interest in reading or writing about international affairs to become a peer reviewer. Peer reviewers are the first to read pieces once they are submitted, and their comments are instrumental in guiding the final publication choices of the Editorial Board. The peer reviewing process enables the Editorial Board to base its decisions on a wider pool of opinions, which in turn helps ensure the quality and integrity of the Journal.

Peer reviewers are expected to attend a training workshop in the middle of the production cycle. This workshop will introduce peer reviewers to the Journal’s approach to evaluating submissions and provide an excellent opportunity for undergraduates to become familiar with a professional publication process.

How to Apply

To apply to become a peer reviewer, please send an email indicating your name, year, and academic background and interests to jsjis@uw.edu.

Peer reviewers are eligible receive 1 credit of SIS 499 (Independent Study) for working with the Journal. If you are interested in signing up to receive credit, please include your full name, student number, major, and UW email in your application email.

Reviewing Criteria

Peer reviewers are responsible for submitting a brief paragraph to the Editorial Board commenting on the quality of the pieces they were assigned, within a week of their assignment date and attending a meeting with the Journal’s Editorial Board. These comments should address the following questions:

  • Did the piece lay out a clear thesis with a well-thought out argument? Is this thesis interesting or innovative?
  • Is the argument convincing? Does the author use quality evidence? Are there any unsubstantiated claims? Does the author use analysis and commentary to link these pieces of evidence together?
  • Does the author employ a broader theoretical framework? Is this framework well-explained?
  • Beyond grammar, citation and other stylistic concerns, does the piece have any major flaws that would require a large amount of work?
  • Who is the target audience?
  • Should the piece be considered for publication? (Possible answers: A) Yes, this is a fairly strong paper; B) Maybe, after extensive revision. It does have potential; or C) No, overall this is a weak paper.)

Peer reviews should not be too concerned with formatting, spelling or grammar issues, nor should a peer reviewer spend more than an hour on one paper. Edits or revisions are not necessary: all the Editorial Board needs is a quick assessment of whether a submission is worth a second, closer read.

Reviewers are required to meet with the Editorial Board to discuss their comments in person. The meeting for Spring 2013 will be on Saturday, April 21, 2013. More info on the Spring 2013 meeting can be found on our Facebook event page.