Review Process

April 11, 2010

Every review on our website was written collaboratively and published anonymously by the board or boards that were involved in writing it. Our review process motto is: collaborative reviews, constructive criticism.

The Harvard Art Review was founded to create conversations within the arts community, and to allow honest and critical feedback to be published by people who really understand the art form they are critiquing. Part of the problem with this, though, is that the most informed writers are also usually the most involved in the arts community. The problem we faced when designing our review process was, how can we get people so involved in the arts community to write with an honest, critical voice that will not be colored by bias?

We believe that the collaborative writing process, a thorough editing procedure, and anonymous publishing is the best way to provide fair, honest, and informed peer feedback. We hope this will give members of the arts community critical feedback that will help them to grow. We strive to be a positive and constructive force at Harvard, not a negative and destructive one.

Our editors ensure that each review is written collaboratively, that all involved in a review have a voice in the write-up, and that personal biases do not unfairly color reviews. We never let anyone be involved in writing or editing a review for something in which they are directly involved. Reviews go through three levels of editing: first from the members of the review team, then from the Board Editor, and finally from the editors-in-chief. We feel that this triple accountability corrects biases and prevents writers from abusing our anonymity policy.

We want to hear from you! Our readers are free to post comments about any review that appears on the website. Furthermore, we are constantly striving to improve our review process and make it more transparent for readers. If you have any suggestions, please let us know.


Comments are closed.

Follow Us