About
Murmurations uses a collaborative community review model for our peer review process that emphasizes relationality and community building. Generally, we employ an open peer review process (as in, the names of the author and peer reviewers will be known to each other) but make exceptions when anonymity is requested by the author. Each submission (except those under the “not peer reviewed” category named in our scope) is assigned at least two peer reviewers. Murmurations believes subject knowledge on trans and gender diverse issues and other lived experiences is just as important as subject knowledge in cataloging, student success, etc. for peer reviewers. For this reason, at least one reviewer will be trans or gender diverse with subject knowledge on gender and will be primarily reviewing article content around that content. A second peer reviewer will be focusing primarily on research methods (if applicable) and the area of library work relevant to the article. Other peer reviewers may be sought based on other subject knowledge needed to adequately review the article (e.g. if the article also touches on disability, immigrant experiences, another area of library work, etc.).
Review Process
Review Team Composition
- Lead Editor/Review Coordinator: Who facilitates the collaborative process and serves as a liaison among all participants
- Community Reviewer: A trans or gender diverse person with lived experience and subject knowledge who will focus primarily on the gender-related content, community impact, and accessibility of the work
- Academic/Professional Reviewer: A library professional who will focus on research methods (if applicable), professional practice implications, and disciplinary knowledge
- Copyeditor: A member of the Editorial Board or another community member who focuses on grammar, word choice, and other stylistic matters of the piece to ensure accessibility, clarity, and cohesion
- Additional Specialist Reviewers as needed: Based on the article’s scope (e.g., disability studies, immigration, specific areas of library work, etc.), research focus, or methodology
Review Processes
The review team will be assembled by the Lead Editor/Review Coordinator through author suggestion(s) and editorial board selection. At any point in the process, the Lead Editor/Review Coordinator or author(s) may invite other reviewers to contribute to the review process
The lead editor/review coordinator will coordinate the peer review and publication process and act as a resource and liaison between the author and peer reviewers, the author and copyeditor, and the author and the Editorial Board.
Currently all article drafts will be submitted and reviewed using Cryptpad to allow and encourage conversation between reviewers. We believe this collaborative peer review approach can provide authors with more meaningful and engaged feedback while also helping peer reviewers grow their skillset in peer review by learning from each other.
Areas of Potential Feedback
- Grammar, word choice, and style (as needed/relevant)
- Accessibility and clarity, particularly given different backgrounds, learning styles, etc.
- Community relevance and potential impact
- Intellectual coherence and scholarly rigor
- Engagement with relevant literature and ongoing conversations
- Research methods and evidence (when applicable)
- Professional practice implications for library workers
- Intersectional awareness and inclusive approaches
Commitment to ongoing development
Our process is intentionally iterative, developmental, and supportive. Our review team works together with authors to:
- Identify strengths and opportunities for growth in the submission
- Engage in collaborative problem-solving around areas needing development
- Provide constructive feedback rooted in shared commitment to improving the work
- Support authors through multiple rounds of revision as needed
Because relationship-building and cultivating a community of trans and gender diverse scholars, thinkers, and knowledge creators is central to our peer review/community review process, each publication review process concludes with a community review conversation—a virtual meeting that brings together the author, all reviewers, and the Lead Editor—to foster connections, create space for deeper dialogue, and close out review prior to final author revisions and publication.
This gathering allows everyone involved to ensure:
- Synthesis & Integration: Discuss together how the various reviewer perspectives and layers of feedback can be integrated into final revisions
- Relationship Building: Authors and reviewers connect and share their motivations for the work towards building an ongoing knowledge community
- Collective Learning: Reflect on insights gained through the review process and how it has shaped their thinking (and contributed to the conversations, scholarly and otherwise, of which they are a part)
- Community Strengthening: These conversation reinforces our shared commitment to trans-inclusive library practice and collaborative knowledge creation
Following this gathering, authors complete their final revisions with a deeper understanding of how their work contributes to our collective knowledge and community goals.
Consistent with our commitment to transparent and relationship-centered scholarship, all Review Team members are acknowledged in the published work, unless they request otherwise.
Policies
Generative AI Policy for Reviewers
To protect author confidentiality, intellectual property, and the integrity of peer review, editors and peer reviewers may not use generative AI tools at any stage of the review process.
This means reviewers may not use generative AI to:
- Draft, rewrite, translate, or “polish” any part of a review report, confidential comments, or comments to the editor.
- Summarize, analyze, critique, score, or otherwise evaluate a submitted manuscript.
- Generate recommendations (accept/revise/reject) or suggested edits, citations, or research directions.
- Produce reviewer checklists, rubrics, or decision rationales based on the manuscript.
Please note that submitted manuscripts and all associated materials are confidential. Reviewers must not:
- Upload, paste, or otherwise share any part of a manuscript (including quotes, figures, tables, references, metadata, or paraphrases that are traceable to the submission) into a generative AI system.
- Use AI-enabled browser extensions or third-party services that ingest page content for “assistant” features while a manuscript is open.
Non-generative tools that do not create new content and do not transmit manuscript content externally (e.g., basic spellcheck in a local word processor) are generally acceptable.
If a review is found to have been produced using generative AI or if manuscript content has been shared with a generative AI system:
- The review may be discarded.
- The reviewer may be removed from the reviewer pool and future reviewing privileges may be revoked.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers affirm that they will complete the review without generative AI assistance and will maintain strict confidentiality of all submitted materials.
murmurations 