For Reviewers

Welcome to Our Reviewer Community

At Conversations, peer review is not about gatekeeping.

We invite all reviewers to read our full guidelines before accepting an invitation to review.

Our guidelines offer insight into:

· Our double-anonymized review process (inclusive term for “double-blind”)
· What makes a constructive and respectful review
· How to identify potential conflicts of interest
· Our expectations around accessibility, equity, and epistemic justice
· Please scroll down to see our complete Guidelines for Reviewing Submissions.

Note: We use “double-anonymized” to reflect language that is more inclusive and avoids ableist metaphors.

How to Become a Reviewer

Interested in reviewing for us? Email us at [conversj@dal.ca] with a brief description of your areas of expertise.

To join, please email [conversj@dal.ca] with:

· A short bio or CV
· Areas of expertise or interest
· Any relevant lived or community-based experience

What we look for in Reviews

We ask that reviews:

· Offer constructive, specific feedback
· Honour the diverse ways of knowing and expressing
· Support authors in developing their work
· Avoid academic gatekeeping or dismissive critique
· Embrace accessibility and clarity in tone

Thank You
We appreciate your participation in the review process.

Guidelines for Reviewing Submissions:

1. Our Approach to Review

Conversations uses a double-anonymized peer review process:

· Reviewers will not know the identity of the authors.
· Authors will not know the identity of the reviewers.
· We use a double-anonymized review process to ensure ethical, inclusive engagement. (See our note on inclusive language.)
· All manuscripts and reviews are treated as confidential.

2. What We Ask of Reviewers

We ask that you:

· Accept or decline invitations promptly based on the title and abstract.
· Let us know if you need more time.
· Provide feedback that is honest, specific, and grounded in care and justice.
· Avoid harmful, dismissive, or excessively academicized critique.
· Disclose any conflicts of interest (see below).

3. Conflicts of Interest

Please let us know if:

· You work or collaborate closely with the author(s),
· You have a personal, financial, or ideological relationship that could affect your neutrality,
· You feel unable to fairly evaluate the work due to its topic or approach.
We value transparency and collective accountability over rigid neutrality.

How conflicts may still arise in double-anonymized review:

· Familiar content or voice: You may recognize the work from a conference or distinct citation pattern.
· Unintentional identifiers: Authors may reference affiliations or cite themselves without anonymization.
· Your own limitations: You may hold ideological biases or lack familiarity with the framework.

4. Writing Your Review

Please include the following in your review:

a. Brief Summary of the manuscript’s aim, contribution, and strengths. A 2–3 sentence overview of the manuscript’s aim, contribution, and strengths.

b. General Comments Thoughtful reflections on:
              · The paper’s contribution to critical, decolonial, or justice-centered discourse,
              · Relevance, originality, and clarity (of language and thoughts),
              · Structural coherence and engagement with relevant texts or knowledges,
              · Opportunities for growth and clarification.

c. Specific Comments Concrete suggestions (with page or section references) on:
              · Key areas for clarification or development,
              · Ethical framing, theoretical grounding, or accessibility,
              · Missing or underrepresented voices or perspectives

d. Recommendation Please choose one:
              · Accept as is,
              · Accept with minor revisions,
              · Major revisions required,
              · Reject

Your final recommendation should align with the suggestions and reflections shared in your comments, so that the process remains transparent and constructive.

5. Guiding Values and Questions

These are not a checklist, but questions to guide your review:

· Does the work challenge dominant narratives or structures of power?
· Is it rooted in lived experience, collective or community practice?
· Does it use language that is inclusive and affirming?
· Does it explore opportunities to honour non-Western or Indigenous knowledges?
· How does the manuscript imagine resistance, healing, or liberation?

We welcome work that resists traditional academic forms. Please assess submissions on their own terms, not only by conventional scholarly standards.

6. Tone

Please approach the manuscript with humility, curiosity, and respect.

· Highlight what the work does well.
· Avoid overly harsh, dismissive, or disciplinary language.
· Ask: What would it look like to help this work grow?
Our goal is not perfection. Our goal is rigor with care.

7. Use of AI Tools

Do not upload any portion of a manuscript to AI platforms like ChatGPT or Gemini. You may use grammar tools to lightly edit your own review, but please disclose this in your reviewer notes to the editors.

8. Confidentiality

Do not share or quote any part of the manuscript during or after review. If you wish to consult a colleague about a specific point, contact the editorial team first.

9. Questions or Concerns?

If you have questions about accessibility, plagiarism, ethics, or your approach, contact the editorial team: conversj@dal.ca

Thank You We are grateful for the time and thought you bring to your review.