REVIEW COORDINATOR: Kurt Milberger

Post Img
August 20th, 2019 12:30:08 pm

Video Transcript: Four Style Criteria

Terms & Conditions Icon

Abstract

A transcript of the fourth installment of the PPJ's Learning Network Video Series, which discusses the four style criteria used to develop content for the journal during Formative Peer Review.

Welcome to the fourth installment of the Public Philosophy Journal’s Learning Network Video Series. In this video, you’ll learn about the PPJ’s primary style criteria.

Scholarship produced and published by the PPJ community is guided by the four style criteria: relevance, accessibility, intellectual coherence, and scholarly dialogue. Composers are invited to submit content that attends equally to these criteria.

As each formative peer review process unfolds on our open review platform, we ask that reviewers and review coordinators consider these criteria, even as they offer other advice about how to refine the submission under consideration.

The PPJ is committed to shaping and publishing content that is valuable to particular public communities. We thus ask that submissions bear relevance to a timely issue of public concern.

Submissions exemplifying relevance must deeply engage with an issue of pressing significance to a particular community, and also actively connect with that community by addressing its concerns, engaging in dialogue with its members, and including the community in developing the work. 

Submissions are accessible when they resonate and connect with the public at large and especially with the communities for which their topics are of particular relevance.  

Accessibility involves unpacking technical terms and concepts to provide definitions and explanations in clear, nontechnical language. Accessible submissions offer approachable language and invite discussion from individuals from a wide array of disciplinary, educational, occupational, and organizational backgrounds.

Submissions demonstrate intellectual coherence by supporting their claims with clear reasons and strong evidence, as well as by employing concepts that advance and deepen public understanding of the issue at hand.

In other words, intellectually coherent submissions present philosophical explanations of and responses to the concern in a well thought out and straightforward way.

As examples of engagement with scholarly dialogue, submissions demonstrate awareness of and receptiveness to pertinent conversations within the academy and beyond, whether these are encountered in text-based, multimedia, or other forms of scholarly activist communication.

By "scholarship," we do not simply mean content shaped by traditional academic customs and standards. The PPJ adheres to a broad meaning of scholarship as a collective endeavor that values and pursues diverse possibilities for innovative, cross-disciplinary, and participatory research.

We hope you enjoyed this overview of the PPJ’s style criteria, and we look forward to engaging with you as we produce philosophical work for and with the public. 

To learn more about the PPJ, Formative Peer Review, and its style criteria, please browse our website, read an issue of the journal, and check out the other videos in this learning network series. 

Thank you. 

Footnotes

    Citation

    Public Philosophy Journal

    Copyright

    2019

    We would love to hear what you think! Please share your thoughts with us by logging in https://publicphilosophyjournal.org/login to comment, or join our community by signing up here!