Scholarly publishing relies heavily on reviewers. In addition to validating academic work, peer review improves the quality of published research and facilitates networking among researchers.
Identifying which papers can be published is guided by peer reviewers. Identification of flaws in methodology and unfounded conclusions is crucial. A reviewer should also distinguish potential problems.
The community benefits from accepting a review. Reviewers can learn from others in their areas of interest.
Types of Peer Review
In single anonymized reviews, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This type of peer review is the traditional method of reviewing. The benefit of reviewer anonymity is impartiality, but it can also veer into unnecessarily harsh commentary on the authors’ work.
In a double anonymized review, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. Author anonymity limits reviewer bias based on gender, country of origin, academic status, or publication history. It also allows for articles written by prestigious or renowned authors to be considered on the content of their article rather than their reputation.
However, total author anonymity is not guaranteed because authors could be identified by subject (especially when the field of study is narrow), writing style, or self-citation.
With a triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous, and the author’s identity is unknown to reviewers and editors. The complexities involved in anonymizing articles to this level are considerable.
Open review is an umbrella term for many models aiming at greater transparency during the peer review process. For example, the reviewer and author are known to each other during the process. Other types of open review may make peer-review reports or publications transparent for open discussion with the community.
Some believe open reviews encourage honest reviewing. However, others see the process as problematic; politeness or fear of retribution may cause reviewers to withhold or tone down criticism.
How to Peer Review
Try to have an uninterrupted block of time to read the manuscript entirely. Doing so will give an overview of the flow of the paper. Realize that it will take several hours to complete a review. With experience, the time required will likely decrease. Develop a system. Writing a meaningful review away from reference materials and computers is complex.
The primary job of a reviewer is to review content. Is the content accurate and up to date? Conduct a literature search to ensure that all relevant information is included in the manuscript.
The manuscript should include a discussion of critical studies in the field. Content also should be balanced between introductory and more advanced material. Do not assume that every reader is as familiar with the topic; basic explanatory information should be included.
The second reading of the manuscript should take place after the literature search. Notes can be made on aspects of the manuscript discussed in the review, such as missing literature, overemphasis on some sections, inaccurate or out-of-date content, lack of focus, particular strengths, clarity of tables and figures, and suggestions for change.
Most of the content should be referenced, preferably with peer-reviewed references. Check as many references as possible. Ensure that the references are used accurately and not taken out of context. If errors were found in citations, include that information in the review. Errors in citations might imply a carelessness in manuscript preparation that may carry forward into the body of the paper.
Do not spend time reviewing grammar or style, and do not rewrite the manuscript. The reviewer’s job is to assess the content, not the style. In the review, describe whether the manuscript reads clearly and flows well. Have familiarity with the journal’s author guidelines. In the review, note whether the manuscript seems right for the journal and whether the author followed guidelines.
If there are conflicts of interest, inform the editor and return the manuscript as soon as possible. Conflicts may include recognizing the author, having a financial interest in the subjects discussed, or having bias about the topic. Confidentiality is part of the reviewer’s role, and the manuscript should not be shared or discussed with anyone other than the editor.
Comments to the author should be professional and positive. Employ constructive criticism and avoid negativity. Finally, make an overall assessment and recommendation to reject or accept, with or without major or minor revisions. Reviewers play an invaluable role in upholding the professional standards of their field.
Get Started
Looking for archival advising, records management, and historical research services? Click below to speak with an expert consultant.
Well-resourced institutions have developed archival best practices, including comprehensive finding aids, climate-controlled storage, and digital preservation systems. For small or resource-constrained archives, these standards can feel out of reach. The danger is that the profession’s ideals may discourage institutions from taking action, leaving records vulnerable. The solution lies in paring down practices and procedures without abandoning principles.
Many archives exist within environments of chronic underfunding. Community archives, small historical societies, or lone arrangers may work with little more than donated materials, a handful of volunteers, and minimal budgets.
However, these institutions remain vital, safeguarding the histories of communities often absent from mainstream narratives. Scarcity shapes their reality, yet it can still allow meaningful work.
Humanity produces more digital content than at any other point in history. Every click, message, and post contributes to an expanding universe of data that represents the cultural memory of our time. At the center of this transformation stand archivists, the professionals uniquely trained to ensure that memories survive in the future. However, even as the scale of the challenge grows, their voices risk being sidelined in public conversations about digital preservation.
In recent years, the concept of “slow librarianship” has emerged as a thoughtful response to the accelerating pace and pressures placed upon library professionals. Drawing inspiration from the broader slow movement, it emphasizes care, reflection, ethics, and people-centered work over speed and efficiency.
The archival profession is characterized by dedication to public memory, cultural preservation, and service. However, beneath this noble mission lies a troubling reality: the increasing reliance on gig and contract labor.
Written documents have long occupied a privileged position in archives as the most authoritative memory source. However, this excludes vast repositories of knowledge that reside outside the written word, especially within Indigenous communities, where memory is often preserved and transmitted through oral traditions, performance, storytelling, ceremony, and embodied practices.
Archival description is often treated as a neutral or technical task: summarizing contents, assigning subject headings, and organizing metadata for retrieval. However, description is actually far from neutral. It shapes how users interpret records, which narratives are centered, and whose voices are made visible or erased.
As the archival profession reckons with the legacies of colonialism, more institutions and practitioners are turning toward Indigenous and decolonial approaches that reframe traditional archival practice. Central to this shift is recognizing cultural protocols and community-defined rules governing how knowledge is created, shared, accessed, and preserved. Cultural protocols are foundational to ethical, respectful, and reciprocal relationships between archives and Indigenous communities.
In recent decades, Indigenous communities and archivists have challenged the dominant frameworks that have long shaped archival practice. Traditionally, Western archival models have prioritized state authority, institutional control, and the presumption of neutrality. These models often fail to reflect Indigenous worldviews, community needs, or the rights of Indigenous peoples over their records and heritage.
As archival practice shifts to meet the challenges of the digital age, the ethical use of born-digital materials has become one of the most pressing concerns for archivists. These materials—emails, websites, text messages, digital photographs, spreadsheets, social media posts, and more—are created and stored digitally from their inception.
The fundamental principles of archival preservation focus on the agents of deterioration, preventive conservation, and essential preservation strategies applied in archival settings.
The monetary appraisal of archives and manuscripts is a critical yet underexplored intersection of library science and financial valuation. This article addresses the persistent knowledge gap between archival assessment and fiscal valuation and provides an overview of the monetary appraisal process in the United States. It focuses on concluding the fair market value (FMV) of noncash charitable contributions, a process governed by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). By documenting practices and terminology, the article serves as a resource for archivists navigating the complexities of donor relations and institutional stewardship. It advocates for increased fiscal literacy within the archival profession, suggesting that an integrated understanding of market dynamics and stewardship costs is essential for the care and financial substantiation of collections.
Proper archival storage is one of the most critical aspects of archival preservation. In addition to housing collections in a dedicated archival storage room, using suitable storage materials and enclosures helps protect archival collections from environmental damage, physical wear, and chemical deterioration.
One of the core challenges archivists face is determining the appropriate description level for materials in their collections. From broad collection-level overviews to granular item-level details, descriptive hierarchies play a crucial role in conveying the context and structure of archival materials.
Description is a cornerstone of archival practice, providing the means for users and archivists to understand, access, and interpret materials.
Mixed-media archives, which contain physical and digital records, present unique challenges for archival arrangement. These collections require archivists to develop strategies that address the different needs of physical and digital materials while maintaining the collection’s coherence and accessibility.
Digital records have introduced new challenges to traditional archival arrangement practices. While the principles of original order and provenance remain relevant, the nature of digital materials requires archivists to adapt these principles to new formats and technologies.
Archival arrangement organizes and structures archival materials to ensure efficient management, access, and preservation.
Redaction in archival work—obscuring or removing sensitive information from records—has become a central concern in contemporary archival ethics. As archives increasingly acquire born-digital records and digitize historical collections for online access, archivists must grapple with data privacy, access, transparency, and potential harm.
Archives have traditionally focused on preserving historical records, ensuring access, and maintaining the integrity of collections. However, in the digital age, the moral responsibilities of archivists have grown more complex.
Archives have long been viewed as bastions of memory, preservation, and historical accountability. However, archivists must confront ethical questions in an era of digital surveillance, data harvesting, and global information flows.
As archival institutions evolve from custodians of information to facilitators of memory and meaning-making, emotional engagement has become a vital, though often overlooked, dimension of archival design.
Archival reading rooms have long been the centerpiece of public access to collections. They are where researchers engage with historical documents, where discovery becomes tangible, and where the institutional identity of an archives is most visibly embodied.
Archival discovery tools, such as catalogs, finding aids, search interfaces, and digital repositories, are often the first point of contact between users and collections. These tools serve as maps and compasses, guiding users through vast and often complex holdings.
Design thinking has become a widely adopted approach in fields ranging from technology to education, prized for emphasizing empathy, experimentation, and iterative problem-solving. For archives, traditionally shaped around internal workflows and professional conventions, design thinking presents an opportunity to reimagine outreach and engagement strategies from users’ perspectives.
As the archival profession embraces a broader commitment to accessibility and equity, it must consider how design choices affect neurodivergent archives users.
Transcription is a powerful tool in the effort to make archives more accessible. It transforms handwritten, printed, and audiovisual materials into searchable, readable, and usable text, extending the reach of archival collections to users who might otherwise face barriers to access.
As archives increasingly move into the digital realm, ensuring online accessibility has become a fundamental responsibility. For users who are blind, have low vision, or experience cognitive or motor disabilities, screen readers serve as a vital gateway to digital content. These tools translate onscreen text and interface elements into synthesized speech or Braille, allowing users to navigate websites, databases, and catalogs without relying on visual cues. However, for screen readers to function effectively, digital environments must be designed with intentionality and care. In archival settings, this may be overlooked.
Archives embody the principles of access, stewardship, and service. However, for some users, physical and digital archives remain challenging to navigate, use, or even enter. Barriers to archival access are often unintentional, stemming from outdated facilities, inaccessible technologies, or limited awareness of diverse user needs.
No archives is an island. Especially in resource-constrained environments, collaboration through shared infrastructure provides a lifeline. Consortia models turn scarcity into opportunity by spreading costs and expertise across multiple archives. By pooling resources, institutions achieve more than they could alone.