Studies in Debate and Oratory
Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for agreeing to review for Studies in Debate and Oratory. This document is intended to serve as a guideline to help you provide helpful and useful comments about this manuscript for the editors. Although we have full faith and confidence that your review will be helpful in making a decision about the manuscript as well as helpful to the author in understanding our decision, we want to share our vision and philosophy about the review process so that each reviewer, manuscript, and decision is in line with the same principles.
Reviews are meant to help build up and out, not restrict and minimize.
We believe a good review shows the potential of what an essay can become. Too often reviews take a disciplinary tone of what is wrong with the piece. Although we feel it is important to point out errors or poor interpretations or arguments, do so in a way to help show the author how the argument could be improved. We appreciate reviews that take the position of "both/and" rather than "either/or" – for example, "the author's claim is both undeveloped and could benefit from a more careful reading of source X."
Distinguish clearly between what you would have done and what the author should do.
Reviews are difficult because we passionately care about the topics that authors write about. This is why we selected you to review after all! Make sure to draw a distinction in your review between your preferences of how to make this argument and how well the author made it. You can suggest your point of view as to how the argument should be made, of course. However, balance this with suggestions of how the author could improve the argument they are interested in making.
Suggest references liberally and often if they help develop the author's point.
We believe that a lot of thoughtful, creative, and good scholarly writing is never published due to academic gatekeeping: Making sure that the "correct" citations appear in an essay from the writers that "everyone in the field" should know. We stand opposed to this kind of gatekeeping. Studies in Debate and Oratory seeks a broad interdisciplinary approach to what counts as scholarly writing. If you have suggestions for sources that should be included, please share them liberally with the author. Make sure to point out how the source could develop the argument they are making. We prefer a variety of sources – interpreting "diversity" as broadly as possible – and do not think that good reviews fit a particular bibliographic niche.
Scholarship is cooperative and community based.
Sometimes reviewing is a frustrating task when an essay appears loosely developed, or undeveloped. Sometimes our defenses are triggered and we feel we need to protect a field, discipline, or topic from "bad" scholarship. We believe this reaction can be a positive one where we encourage authors to try again, if possible. We believe there's plenty of room at the table for the subjects we cover, and the best scholarship arises out of a shared process of engagement with ideas between the author, reviewers, and the editors. We encourage reviewers to take the stance of "How can we find room for this point of view" as opposed to "this point of view doesn't belong." We've received many reviews in our careers that come from a position of austerity or conservation; we reject that philosophy and suggest that debate and oratory are subjects that overflow with abundance and possibility. There is no "right" way to study debate and oratory, and reviews are a community resource that amplifies the possibilities of authors' texts.