Reviewing Submissions

The submissions review process (so far) changes somewhat from collective to collective - it really depends on how a particular EC wants to structure it, as well as how many and what types of submissions we get. We typically aim to accept:

• 7-8 articles of varying lengths

• 1 interview

• 1 revolutionary lives

• 2-3 reviews

• 3-4 chapter reports

• 2-3 art features (selected by art editors)

As a first pass, the managing editor places all submissions into a spreadsheet after the CFP has closed. In the recent past, we've gotten around 40-60 article submissions. We also get a large number of poetry, reviews and interview submissions. The text below refers to the article submission process in particular. The other departments follow a similar process, although interviews and reviews tend to be more flexible (we may pick subjects or books without having authors) and chapter reports are generally commissioned. by the managing editor.

First round

The editorial collective meets the week after submissions close. At this stage, we ask ourselves:

• Which submissions stand out? Which submissions do we absolutely not want to have?

• What kinds of submissions are we getting? Are we reaching a diverse enough authorship? Do we have a wide range of topics? Are we missing any particular subject areas that the EC was hoping to have?

At this stage, if there are any gaps in the themes of the issue, we can start reaching out to authors individually to commission pieces.

During the meeting, we discuss each pitch individually, and discuss reviews that editors have left using our Airtable "Submission reviews" template. EC members are asked to advocate for or against pitches in the meeting. After this discussion, we should get an idea of which articles the EC is not excited about. We cull those, and move the surviving high ranking pitches to the second round.

Second and third rounds

During this round, EC members are asked to make definitive choices about articles that we want to keep or reject—this often takes more than one meeting. For submissions that we request more information or clarity from the author(s), we may discuss the feedback whenever we receive it.