Editorial Review Team Requirements and Guidelines

The success of the Anthology as a project relies heavily on the review team. We have sought a wide a range of people, all of whom have different individual tastes and standards, and in that diversity of opinion we hope to find both our strength and our integrity.

As much as possible, No Stairway encourages the editorial review team to keep two things in mind:

1. The Anthology's audience may have broader interests than you yourself have. 2. Our goal is to expand the Anthology - to find reasons to approve, not reject.

Keeping these two goals in mind, we look for stories that are not necessarily popular or well known. Some of the works submitted may be both those things, but all submissions are given equal weight in the blind review process. We want to promote good, solid work - the hidden jewels and B-sides as well as the greatest hits. That's what this Anthology is all about.

The editorial review team is tasked with judging fiction based on a mix of tangible and intangible criteria.

The Tangibles:

You probably already know this, but we're stating it anyway.

Some common hallmarks of good fiction are plot, pacing, characterization, command of language, and unique applications of new spins on old ideas.

Be honest, but don't be dismissive, and remember: you're not in this alone. While you review independently, other reviewers are doing the same; your aggregate assessments are what determine if a work is to be accepted. If you have questions or concerns, or difficulty in making a determination, there are resources to assist you. Depending on your needs, it may be a member of the Editorial Oversight board, the administrator, or another member of the team who, while they can't discuss the specifics of the story you are working on, can be used as a sounding board for any conflicts or uncertainties you may have.

If you find yourself in this situation, please contact the administrator, and she will find someone to assist you.

The Intangibles:

There is no way to eliminate personal preference in the review process, nor are we trying to do so. The administrative staff will do their level best to eliminate any trigger issues for the reviewers (rape, non-con, incest, death, etc.) in assigning the stories, because we need you to be as objective as possible, and giving you a story that triggers an instant "ick" response is counterproductive to that goal. But that deference only applies to thematic issues that can be identified. A plotline that doesn't catch your interest isn't reason enough to set aside the story or give it a pass - unless you can identify what about that plotline in that particular story is the issue.

As a reviewer, it is paramount that you be able to articulate why a story received your yea or nay. Liking or not liking something isn't enough in and of itself.

Hard and Fast:

Members of the editorial review team are constrained by a few rules. They're a necessary evil, and we hope not too onerous.

  1. A story must be accepted or rejected as it stands. This is not a beta process. Your task is not to correct or try to polish the story, but to assess it on its merits as you receive it. While you do offer suggestions for tightening or clarifying segments of the story, please be aware that a story cannot be accepted contingent on correcting or re-editing.
  2. The review process is an independent one. Discussing the specifics of an assigned story with other people or even with other team members is not allowed unless you have registered specific concerns with the administrator. The administrator may call in the editorial oversight board if necessary. The integrity of the process depends on certain levels of both transparency and anonymity. We are asking you for your honest opinion on a selected work. Your opinion will be collected with the opinions of a minimum of two other team members and your votes tallied for an overall assessment. While it means you don't get points for having good taste, it also ensures you don't get called out for bias or favoritism.
  3. Your name or familiar handle will be publicly posted on the No Stairway website and community as part of the editorial review team. You cannot present yourself as a sock puppet or otherwise try to mask or enhance your current standing in the fan community (for good or ill) by becoming someone else whom no one will recognize. The administrative staff is fully prepared to counter any questions or outright attacks on the editorial team, should they arise. The processes and procedures put in place for approving submissions are intended to make the whole thing as above board and public as possible without providing fodder for complaints - but there will be, no doubt, some people who disagree in principle or in specifics. You are not required nor asked to respond to those issues on behalf of or in support of the project. Your job is to read, comment, vote, and let the administrative staff deal with any issues that may arise.
  4. This may be a largely thankless job. The structure of the Anthology is such that no single person can take credit for the success or failure of the project. This is, first and foremost, a collaborative effort by people with a common goal: the promotion and celebration of the incredible array of talent in the Supernatural fan fiction community. Please consider that before you apply, and again when you are processing submissions.
  5. If you have issues or concerns, or outright complaints, we encourage you to bring them to the administrative staff. If the issue is with the administrative staff, you can bring it to either the oversight board or to the community forum provided for the editorial and administrative staff at backstairway.livejournal.com.
  6. If you have personal issues, even temporary ones, that would bar you from fulfilling your duties as an editorial reviewer, please let the administrative staff know. You can be taken out of the panel rotation temporarily or permanently as your life demands, with best wishes.
  7. If you are assigned to review a work you are familiar with, and you cannot guarantee your objectivity, please contact the administrator, and an alternate team member will be sought.

The Other Stuff:

Hopefully the vast majority of technical issues, either minor or major, will be eliminated in the screening process. But as anyone who has ever worked with betas or editors knows, it is still possible for there to be minor errors in a story no matter how many people have seen it before it is posted. If you find such flaws, please note them, but try to put them aside in your overall review of the story. Such small things can be corrected, usually with a minimal amount of fuss.

Be aware that the oversight committee may review a member of the editorial review team who consistently turns down stories that other team members approve, or approves stories that other team members turn down. Team members are required to give a rationale for their votes, and those rationales will be reviewed to ensure that each story has been given careful consideration. Actions taken may include discussion with the team member under review, or asking that team member to take on a different role in the staff. Every team member's opinion is valid and important, but the Anthology's ultimate goal will need to take priority. It may be as simple as your mindset being inclined toward only promoting the best of the best, or only the most innovative and creative ideas expressed well. Those are good things to look for, but if it seems that your criteria are too broad or too narrow, you'll be given the opportunity to assess that.

The votes of the editorial review team are tracked. There is no magic threshold of yay or nay votes. Individual votes are compared against team votes and since the teams rotate constantly, concerns can only be tracked over time. If a single reviewer says nay in five consecutive votes when their fellow team members are voting yes, or if the reverse is true, the administrator may monitor the reviewer more closely over the next 3-5 submissions. Five consecutive yea/nay votes in and of itself isn't necessarily significant; individual votes can only be examined in relation to other votes on the Editorial Review team.

This is a part of the process that will remain private: If the administrator indicates she thinks there may be a problem, she will present her concerns to the EOB. It is the EOB's responsibility to either act or wait and see. If the EOB determines there may be an issue, they will contact the reviewer privately. This is an expression of concern and an inquiry for information. How a reviewer applies the standards established by the anthology is as important as what those standards are.

We recognize that an enormous amount of responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of the Editorial Reviewers. Because they work primarily alone, it can be easy for a reviewer to feel like they are being overruled or ignored. If a good number of stories they approved, don't end up being selected, or if a similar number of works they think not up to the Anthology's standards are being approved, it may seem like their vote doesn't count, or that they themselves may be out of step with the Anthology goals. The track and report model is there to makes sure the Reviewers don't feel isolated or ignored. Issues of concern are issues of concern -- they are not and should not be considered disciplinary.

It is the Oversight board's responsibility to makes sure all the staff are doing their jobs, and able to participate in the process in a way that best suits their abilities and interests. It might be that an editor with a too-narrow or too-broad application of standard would be a better fit for second level review. They might have a keen eye best suited to screening, or even better serve the project by being on the Oversight board itself. We want to keep people involved in a way that serves the goals of the project, and keeps our volunteers happy and satisfied.