Readers' Guide

You've accepted a very important task. You have agreed to review a manuscript in your field of expertise to help the Publications Committee determine whether an Aid to Scholarly Publications Program subsidy should be awarded to assist with its publication. Your review, provided in a detailed and frank report, is critical to the Program's process. 

Content of the report

Either directly or in the course of your report, please address the following questions:

1. Are the objectives of the manuscript clear?
2. Is the scholarship sound? Is the author thoroughly acquainted with the literature on the subject?
3. To what audience is the manuscript directed?
4. Do you have any suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript, relating to style, inaccuracies, omissions, or any other points, either substantive or editorial?
5. Is the presentation of the manuscript (grammar, inclusion of notes and bibliography, accuracy of notes, bibliography, and citations, etc...) of professional standard? Is the manuscript readable? Would this manuscript benefit by being shortened or lengthened? If so, please suggest what might be condensed or expanded.
6. How important is it that this manuscript be published, in light of the scholarship available? Is the manuscript:
• a serious advance in state-of-the-art research?
• a major contribution to research?
• a contribution which, while modest, is interesting, and which can be recommended for publication?
• a very modest and limited contribution which can be recommended for publication?
• no contribution to the field; not recommended for publication?
7. Is the manuscript acceptable for publication?
• Yes
• No
• not in its present form but a revised manuscript may be publishable (in this case, please indicate the nature of the revisions required)

Notes

The Publications Committee examines the readers' reports, author's reply and manuscript excerpts in order to decide on a course of action for the work. When a manuscript is approved for support, it is on condition that the work will be published by a qualified scholarly press and will be copy-edited before publication. If the Program Committee declines to fund the manuscript, the author will be provided with reasons for the decision. In some cases, the Committee will invite resubmission from an author after appropriate revision.

Confidentiality

Your identity as a reviewer is strictly confidential. Your report will be sent to the author anonymously. If the work has been submitted by a publisher on an author's behalf, the Program will share your identity with the publisher in strict confidence.

Reviewers' Guide - Scholarly Editions

You've accepted a very important task. You have agreed to review a manuscript in your field of expertise to help the Publications Committee determine whether an Aid to Scholarly Publications Program grant should be awarded to assist with its publication. Your review, provided in a detailed and frank report, is critical to the Program's process.

Content of the report

Either directly or in the course of your report, please address the following questions:

1. Is the publication of this scholarly edition justified in terms of such criteria as the significance, availability, and textual complexity of the work(s) upon which it is centered?
2. Has the copytext, if there is one, been well chosen and emended in the light of the stated editorial principles and rationale? Are the authoritative versions of the work identified? Is the detailed description of the history of the composition, printing and publication of the work provided?
3. Are the editorial principles clearly stated, coherent, and appropriate? Is a sufficiently detailed rationale for the principles provided? Are the editorial notes (and appendix[ces], if any) accurate and complete? Is the introductory material (preface, introduction) adequate? Is the scholarship sound?
4. Towards what audience is the edition directed?
5. Is the presentation of the manuscript (grammar, inclusion of notes and bibliography, accuracy of notes, bibliography, citations, etc...) of professional standard? Would this manuscript benefit by being shortened or lengthened? If so, please suggest what might be condensed or expanded.
6. Do you have any suggestions for the improvement of any portion or aspect of the edition - for example omissions, inaccuracies, substantive or stylistic shortcomings that should be rectified?
7. How important is it that this edition be published, in light of existing editions and scholarship? Is this edition
1. a significant contribution to research
2. a major contribution to research
3. a contribution which, while modest, is interesting, and which can be recommended for publication
4. a very modest and limited contribution which can be recommended for publication
5. no contribution to the field; not recommended for publication
8. Is this a scholarly edition acceptable for publication?
1. yes
2. no
3. not in its present form, but a scholarly edition revised along the lines indicated in this report might be acceptable

Notes

The Program Committee examines the readers' reports, author's reply and manuscript excerpts in order to decide on a course of action for the work. When a manuscript is approved for support, it is on condition that the work will be published by a qualified scholarly press and will be copy-edited before publication. If the Program Committee declines to fund the manuscript, the author will be provided with reasons for the decision. In some cases, the Committee will invite resubmission from an author after appropriate revision.

Confidentiality

Your identity as a reviewer is strictly confidential. Your report will be sent to the author anonymously. If the work has been submitted by a publisher on an author's behalf, the Program will share your identity with the publisher in strict confidence.