The most unique feature of Kairos—our editorial review process—includes three distinct tiers, or stages of review.
- Tier One
- When the editors receive a submission, they evaluate it, deciding if it is indeed appropriate for Kairos. To evaluate the potential quality and scholarly merit of the proposed work, it is then reviewed by a team of editors during a monthly Teir 1 Review meeting. This review will determine whether the submission is ready to enter our formal editorial review process. We provide feedback to the author(s) if it is not yet ready for the next stage of review. If it is ready, then the submission is promoted to Tier Two.
- Tier Two
- The entire editorial board discusses the submission for two-to-three weeks, coming to a collaborative assessment of its quality and potential to be published in Kairos. The board uses the following Peer-Review Heuristic when reviewing submissions:
- CONTRIBUTION: Does the webtext clarify its contribution to that academic conversation and describe that contribution sufficiently, such as through some overarching argument or point woven throughout? (Keep in mind the section expectations highlighted above.)
- RHETORIC/DESIGN: Does the rhetoric, design, and code cohere in ways that forward the argument? Does the webtext include media assets that forward its goals/claims? What could be done to improve the webtext’s accessibility and usability?
- METHODOLOGY: Is the overall contribution clearly supported by relevant methods and evidence (whether or not there's a specific methodology, experimental design, or anti-racist method employed)?
- CITATIONS: Does the author cite inclusively? That is, does the scholarly review (if appropriate) draw from a range of relevant feminist and cultural rhetorical traditions, include scholars from multiple identities (gender, race, disability) if known, or include research in multiple forms (open v. closed-access)?
- NOTE: If a text is accepted (or accepted with revisions), the webtext proceeds (upon successful completion of revisions) to publication. If the text is not accepted, authors who are asked to revise and resubmit are given the opportunity to continue with a Tier Three review/mentorship.
- Tier Three
- The editors assign a staff member to work with authors, as needed, to guide/facilitate revisions based on the editorial board's comments and evaluation. This mentoring can last up to three months. Once Tier Three revisions are complete, the author resubmits the text for a Tier Two review and the process starts again. While advancement to a Tier Three review is not a guarantee of publication, it does reflect a significant investment in the submission. Our intention is to publish the webtext if the author or authors complete the revisions requested in consultation with the editors and editorial board.
