Pre-Review Process – DS/CN Specific

Time to completion

Maximum 7 days from acknowledgement of receipt.


Managing editor and Editorial Team

Action required by Managing Editor

Review article to check that it is broadly appropriate for the journal and mechanically ready for review.

This involves:

  1. Reviewing the abstract (if any) and contents for broad relevance to the journal’s subject area and approach.
  2. Reviewing the article as a whole for completeness, lack of typographical errors, and broad adherence to the journal’s preferred submission style. This includes being in Chicago author-date format and an appropriate bibliography.
  3. Writing to the editor/editorial team with a quick summary of the article’s content and your opinion as to whether it is broadly on topic and mechanically ready for review. If there is an abstract, and this is a suitable summary, you can include that. If there is no abstract or the abstract does not not adequately represent the content of the submission, summarise the article in no more than two or three sentences (e.g. “This article is about the use of gaming and the techniques of gaming in libraries and art galleries”; “this article is about the participation of Canadian settlers, as opposed to professional British soldiers, in combat in the war of 1812. it argues that ‘Canadians’ played a relatively insignificant part”). Make sure to say specifically whether or not the article has a lot of typos, and (broadly speaking) whether it conforms to the journal’s expectations for format and style (especially bibliographic style, since this is often the most expensive to fix). {{Link to sample emails}}.

The final responsibility for determining suitability for review is the editors’. Because this is primarily a mechanical decision (manuscripts that are off topic or full of typos rarely do well and can usually be sent back to the authors), your recommendation and evidence will be extremely helpful to them, however.

Although your comments will be helpful to the editors, you should not spend too much time on them: if the article appears to be unsuitable, your effort is wasted; if it appears to be suitable, the appropriate time for detailed comment comes after the referees have reviewed the piece. A quick read, impressionistic response, and brief statement of your opinion is all that is necessary at this point.

Action required by Editorial Team

Once your recommendation is sent to the Editorial team, the action will take place depending on your suggestions.
Importantly, if you suggest that the article is appropriate and “ready” for review, one or two members of the editorial team are responsible for reading through the article to ultimately determine if the piece is ready to be sent out for review.

  1. It will be sent to one editorial reader for initial approval. If the first reader believes it is ready for review, then it will be sent out for review.
  2. If the first reader is unsure if the article is ready or not, it will be passed on to a second reader for further determination.
  3. If the editors approve the article then it it will be sent out for review.
  4. If the article does not pass approval from both editors, then it will not be sent out for review.

If the article is rejected, it may be sent back to the author with comments and suggestions for changes and recommended for resubmission, or submission to a more appropriate journal. However, it may be rejected until substantial changes are made, at which point the article can be resubmitted at a later date.

Background and further details

Each Journal in the incubator has a different submission procedure. Typical procedure for DS/CN requires the authors to register and submit via an on-line form in OJS at

Acknowledging receipt in a timely manner and introducing yourself is very important in establishing your (and the journal’s) professionalism. Editorial processes can be very opaque to outsiders, and anything that can reduce this makes subsequent steps easier.

If you are upfront with people about processes and deadlines (and stick to them), you’ll find that things go much easier later in the process.

Digital Medievalist

Digital Medievalist is an international web-based community for medievalists working with digital media. It was established in 2003 to help scholars meet the increasingly sophisticated demands faced by designers of contemporary digital projects. Digital Medievalist publishes an open access journal, sponsors conference sessions, runs an email discussion list and encourages best practice in digital medieval resource creation.

Membership in Digital Medievalist is open to anyone with an interest in its subject matter, without regard to skill or previous experience in Digital Humanities or Medieval Studies. Participants range from novices contemplating their first project to many of the pioneers in our field. There are, as of 5 May 2012, a total of 744 members of the mailing list.

The project is hosted at the University of Lethbridge, and overseen by an international executive of medievalists with extensive experience in the use of digital media.

Digital Studies / Le champ numérique

Digital Studies / Le champ numérique (ISSN 1918-3666) is a refereed academic journal serving as a formal arena for scholarly activity and as an academic resource for researchers in the digital humanities. DS/CN is published by the Society for Digital Humanities / Société pour l’étude des médias interactifs (SDH/SEMI), a partner in the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organisations (ADHO). DS/CN was founded for SDH/SEMI at the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab, University of Victoria, in 2008 by Ray Siemens and Christian Vandendorpe.