The conversation about reviewing for conferences and journals you might never have had

A featured session of RSDx—systemic design association

One in a series of systemic design conversations covering a range of topics, such as how reviewing is positioned in an academic career path and how it contributes to research and praxis. The sessions aim to represent various perspectives and answer questions as a resource for people new to reviewing while offering fresh insights for established reviewers and editors.

An undercurrent for this session is acknowledging that academic norms are culturally and institutionally reinforced—and sometimes ripe for revisiting and questioning. The conversations start with points of view from some experienced and emerging reviewers on reviewing and then open to participants in an ask-me-anything format. For academics and practitioners, reviewing engagements are a way to offer authors professional experience and share domain knowledge through single- or double-anonymous review notes. The reviewing payback is the continuous improvement of writing and editing skills and expanded knowledge through exposure to new research. Topics related to reviewing extend to the (re)definition of scholarly practices, the role of metrics and researcher assessments, and barriers that limit the participation of early career researchers and practitioners. Although these issues will likely surface in the sessions, the primary goal is to throw the gate open and discuss what it means to review, who should review, and consider best practices.