Editorial EthosWith Amplify: A Journal of Writing-as-Activism, the co-founding editors intend to advance a peer review process that is expansive, inclusive, and decidedly not "blind." Our peer review process is grounded in liberatory praxis, in which the receiving and giving of feedback is necessarily and unapologetically relational, an expression of creative collegial care. To that end, we will invite authors of submitted work to engage in a conversation with their reviewers from the editorial board for formative dialogue on the ways in which their writing works on their readers and author-centered feedback for use in the revision process.
Our editorial team holds these commitments in their work with Amplify: A Journal of Writing-as-Activism: to being changed as readers by the material we review, and to being change in the world, including through our intentional practice as reviewers. We perceive the act of reviewing in the same way that we perceive the act of (all forms of) writing: as imaginative practices through which we put our individual and collective power to use to make the world as we know it can be.
We believe that the academic system has been built and continues to operate on structures meant to benefit some at the expense of most, and that the academic publication model, grounded in so-called “objectivity,” is a key way that this system has been maintained. As a project that seeks to co-imagine and co-create the conditions of our collective liberation, our editorial process is grounded in principles of relationship-building, dialogue, and care. To that end, we invite authors of submitted work to engage in a conversation with their reviewers from the editorial board for formative dialogue on the ways in which their writing works on their readers and author-centered feedback for use in the revision process.
We welcome your inquiries about Amplify: A Journal of Writing-as-Activism and our editorial processes. And we look forward to reading and engaging with your work and with you as its author.
Review ProcessUpon submitting their work for consideration with Amplify: A Journal of Writing-as-Activism, an author should expect that:
- The managing editor will make an initial determination about the alignment of the submission with the intentions of the journal and, if alignment is found, will forward the manuscript to two reviewers representing different institutional positionalities (e.g., students, faculty, and/or staff).
- The two reviewers will read, respond in writing to the work, and return their review to the managing editor (see Guidelines for Editors and Reviewers, below). The submission that the reviewers read will be free of identifying information.
- The initial decision the reviewers will make will be to 1) to invite the author into a conversation about their work, with the intention of publication, or 2) decide that the work is not aligned with the intentions of Amplify: A Journal of Writing-as-Activism and to encourage submission of the work elsewhere.
- If the reviewers come to differing conclusions about whether or not the submission should move forward, the managing editor will make the decision. If that decision is for the submission to move forward, the managing editor will become the second reviewer on the submission.
- If the reviewers determine that the submission should move forward, they will meet with the submitting author(s) (via phone or video platform) to share their impressions of the work, suggest revisions to strengthen the work, and agree on a revision plan and timeline. The reviewers will communicate this plan and timeline to both the author(s) and the managing editor.
- This process will continue until the author(s), the reviewers, and the managing editor agree that the submission is ready for publication.