Joseph Cheatle, Oxford College of Emory University
My tenure as the Managing Editor at The Peer Review (TPR) shaped my understanding of what academic publishing can be. In a field where practitioners can encounter gatekeeping or opaque publishing practices, TPR stands as a model of what happens when a journal centers collaboration, accessibility, and mentorship; the journal demonstrates how academic publishing can nurture scholarly growth rather than simply adjudicate it. This reflection from my time as Managing Editor explores how TPR’s approach to publishing creates pathways for emerging scholars while upholding rigorous peer review standards.
A Foundation Built on Collaboration
Collaboration is a core tenet of writing center studies and guides most aspects of our work in the field. TPR embodies this principle not just in theory but in its very structure. According to Rebecca Hallman and Sherry Wynn Perdue in their “Editor’s Introduction” to the journal’s founding issue, “By placing collaboration at the center of this publication, by modeling it in the editorial structure, and by showcasing it in most contributions to Issue Zero, we seek to challenge the primacy of the single author study penned by a scholar who creates art and science in isolation.” This collaborative ethos manifests itself in the journal’s leadership structure, which deliberately features both established professionals and graduate students working together. While TPR is admittedly not the only journal in the field that does so, this organizational choice reflects a deep commitment to mentorship and the development of emerging scholars. The journal creates space for early career professionals, graduate students, and practitioners–voices that can sometimes be lost in traditional academic publishing.
An Asset-Based Approach to Publication
The message of TPR is fundamentally uplifting: we aim to find ways to publish works rather than find ways to reject works. This philosophy translates into a purposefully high acceptance rate, ensuring that authors who submit have a genuine chance at publication. However, this does not mean that the journal accepts anything that is submitted. Rather, we commit to working with authors to provide substantive feedback, support meaningful revisions, and make the changes necessary to bring their work to publication. This asset-based approach extends to our review process itself. The Editorial Board developed a “Guideline for Reviewers” that orients reviewers to TPR’s unique philosophy, emphasizing that “our goal is to get just about every pertinent submission to publication” and “we expect our reviewers to offer feedback that allows the author(s) to grow and develop throughout the review process” (“Guideline for Reviewers”). The journal expects reviewers to provide useful, engaged, thoughtful, and actionable feedback with the explicit goal of shepherding submissions toward publication. This document also demystifies timelines and decision-making processes, making the often-obscure world of peer review more transparent. Rather than adopting a primarily evaluative stance, our review process emphasizes an asset-based approach that recognizes promising elements in manuscripts and provides constructive guidance to help authors develop their work.
Resources that Demystify and Support
During my time at the journal, we expanded TPR’s commitment to transparency and support by creating several key resources. Beyond the “Style Guide” and “Accessibility Guide” already in place, we developed three critical documents: the “TPR policy on Author Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Programs including ChatGPT,” “Guideline for Reviewers,” and “You’ve Gotten Feedback, Now What?” Each of these resources serves a distinct purpose in demystifying the publication process. The AI policy addresses an emerging challenge in academic publishing with nuance and context. Rather than simply dictating that AI cannot be used in a particular way, the document provides a thoughtful framework for understanding the ethical use of generative AI tools in the research, writing, and publishing process. It articulates clear expectations about when authors must disclose AI use while acknowledging the complex reality of how these tools are becoming integrated into academic work.
“You’ve Gotten Feedback, Now What?” functions as a practical tool for writers to productively navigate reviewer comments during manuscript revisions. This resource helps authors prioritize and categorize feedback, organize comments into a working grid, develop actionable to-do lists, and craft thoughtful responses to reviewers. For many early-career scholars submitting to TPR as their first publication venue, this kind of structured guidance transforms what can be an overwhelming experience into a manageable and developmental process. These resources acknowledge an important reality: TPR is often not only the first place many graduate and early career scholars submit their work for publication, but also the first journal where many graduate and early-career professionals serve as reviewers. By providing clear guidance and support for both authors and reviewers, we create conditions for learning and growth.
Mentorship Through the Editorial Process
Perhaps the most distinctive approach is the mentorship model embedded in our editorial process. After manuscripts receive external review, authors are assigned a graduate student editor whose role extends far beyond copy-editing. These editors shepherd works through the publication process, helping authors interpret feedback, navigate revisions, and develop their scholarship. One-on-one mentorship provides emerging scholars with insight into editorial decision-making while giving graduate student editors invaluable professional development experience. This multilevel mentorship model creates a valuable cycle: graduate students gain editorial experience and professional knowledge they can carry forward in their careers while authors receive personalized support that helps them develop as scholars.
Conclusion
My experience as the Managing Editor at The Peer Review revealed to me that academic publishing can function by centering collaboration, adopting an asset-based approach to peer review, creating transparent and supportive resources, and embedding mentorship throughout the editorial process. TPR has helped to promote more inclusive publishing practices that set a model to follow for other writing center publications. TPR demonstrates that rigorous scholarship and inclusive editorial practices are not mutually exclusive–rather, they are mutually reinforcing. The journal’s commitment to transparent processes, substantive feedback, and author development creates a model where emerging scholars can grow into their scholarly identities while contributing meaningful work to the field. When we make the publication process visible and accessible, we create pathways for scholars who might otherwise be discouraged or intimidated about the publication process. As I transition from this role, I am committed to replicating and adapting TPR’s collaborative ethos to my own work. I look forward to finding new ways of supporting emerging scholars in the field while taking the time to enjoy reading future issues of TPR.
As my time at TPR comes to an end, I would like to thank and recognize the leadership of TPR’s outgoing Professional Editor, Genie Giaimo, who kept us on task and provided a vision for the journal. I would also like to thank the editorial board members, in particular Graduate Co-Editors, Rabail Qayyum and Andrew Yim, and the Web Editor, Wenqi Cui. Running the journal requires a team and I am honored to have worked with each of you.