Our vision for the journal features a review process aligned with our commitments to inclusive publishing and respecting the labor of authors and reviewers. Over our careers publishing our scholarly work, we three editors have experienced the benefits of what is often termed “double-blind” peer review. Concealing the identities of the reviewer and author can reduce bias and support more inclusive publishing.  At the same time, we recognize that in certain situations identifying the reviewer and author can foster investment, meaningful relationships and humane interactions. Therefore, our journal employs double-anonymous peer review primarily, with options and alternatives depending on the type of piece, genre, stakes for the writer, etc.  

 

Although we see value in the process, we find the term “double blind” ableist and therefore inappropriate.  We are not the only journal editors intentionally shifting the language about anonymous review away from ableist terms such as “blind” to describe the process. We were pleased to learn in April 2022 that Open Journal Systems, the open-access infrastructure we use to shepherd manuscripts, will also be changing the terms describing various types of peer review in their next software upgrade. This shift will impact over 25,000 OJS journals worldwide and effectively rewire writers and editors thinking about the words we use to describe the review process.  

 

Reviewers for WCC submit detailed feedback that honors the dignity and humanity of authors and work in good faith to help authors realize their goals for their writing. In the case where we determine a manuscript is a good fit for our journal but is not yet ready for external double-anonymous review, we have developed a method of “manuscript mentorship.” This method involves pairing authors with identified field/genre mentors who can work one-with-one with authors through a writing process that develops the manuscript toward external-review readiness. As editors, we support both mentors and authors through the manuscript mentorship process by making ourselves available for meetings/check-ins. We are meticulous in our selection of mentors and work with mentors whose practices align with our review philosophy. With permission, we include the names of mentors/reviewers in our acknowledgements for each issue to recognize this relational work. Authors, mentors and reviewers have expressed how meaningful it is for them to participate in the process. After our first issue was published, one author lovingly shared thank-you notes and homemade biscotti that we passed along to reviewers as a token of gratitude, remarking on the novelty of a review process that is both critical and compassionate, rigorous and invigorating.