Reviewer Guidelines

Volunteering to review

You do not need to be a member of ARLIS/NA or be a librarian to be considered for a review assignment. However, all reviewers are expected to critically assess resources with thoroughness and clarity. 

The M&TR co-editors post calls for reviewers on the ARLIS-L listserv and various other email lists periodically. Prospective reviewers fill out an interest form indicating which proposed resources they prefer to review, along with their background qualifications. Selected reviewers are paired with a co-editor for follow-up consultation and editing.

Content scope

Resources selected for review range from traditional research databases to mobile applications, video games, and online publications. Categories include: 

  • Databases / Indexes (commercial and free)
  • Digital projects
    • Online archives
    • Online exhibitions
    • Digital design collectives
    • Digital humanities research
  • Digital publications
    • Blogs or other web forums
    • Online journals
    • E-books
  • Conferences (including papers and panels)
  • Online presentations including OER (open educational resources), lectures, and demonstrations 
  • Performance videos, films, viral videos
  • Interactive resources, including site-specific works and mobile apps
  • Productivity tools
  • Research guides or subject portals
  • Video games

Evaluation criteria

Reviewers should not rely on literal descriptions of how a resource functions, but instead think critically about the overall value and effectiveness of the content and execution. In some cases a resource’s design or choice of platform may be surpassed by the value and quality of the content. 

The reviewer should consider the following factors:

Content & Purpose

  • Identify targeted users; how well would this resource benefit the target audience?
  • Are there comparable works? How do they compare in terms of content scope? execution?
  • Is there transparency around who created the resource and for what purpose? 
  • Is there clarity concerning authority for cited resources?

Format and presentation

  • Does the tool support research, teaching, or collection work?
  • Are sources or data clearly cited and traceable?
  • Does it reflect scholarly rigor or introduce new ways of engaging with art information?

Access

  • Does the resource provide adequate discoverability of the content, through metadata and retrieval tools?
  • Are there special requirements for accessing this resource? (fees, tiers of access, specific software or hardware)
  • Can content be downloaded?

Sustainability

  • Is there transparency about when the resource was last updated? Are there plans to provide additional content?
  • What commitments are in place for maintaining the resource?
  • Is the resource designed to support migration of data over time? Does it employ persistent links?

Critical Reflection

  • Are there any notable biases, assumptions, or ethical concerns?
  • Could the tool be used in instruction or outreach?
  • Are there particular strengths that make it especially valuable for the field?

Author / Creator Responses to Reviews

An author or publisher may respond to a review within six weeks of its publication. The reviewer will be given the opportunity to draft a corresponding response within two weeks. All responses should be limited to factual statements and corrections, and may run no longer than 200 words. The co-editors will post both the initial response and any response from the reviewer simultaneously on the ARLIS/NA Multimedia and Technology Reviews website. No further responses will be solicited or accepted.

Editorial and style guidelines

  • Opening: Begin with a brief overview of the tool’s purpose and scope, including an in-line link to the resource.
  • Word Count: 500–600 words.
  • Images: Include up to three screenshots or stills, if possible. Include captions and alt text.
  • Fact-Checking: Confirm all names, terms, and claims. Spell out acronyms and verify unclear statements with the resource’s administrators when possible.
  • Style:
    • Follow The Chicago Manual of Style.
    • Use a balanced, analytical tone.
    • Avoid contractions, jargon, and first-person voice.
    • Use inline citations rather than footnotes.
    • Italicize publication titles.
    • Spell out numbers one through one hundred.
    • Preferred terms: online, website, videodisk, 1980s, catalogue (for museum use), nineteenth century (noun), nineteenth-century (adjective).
    • Capitalize “Black” when referring to racial or cultural identity; use discretion with “White” based on context.

Formatting

The editors will provide document templates to reviewers. Please see Review Formatting Guidelines for more details.