ASSEMBLAGE operates on an Open Peer Review model to foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and scholarly dialogue. We believe that academic video essays—as a hybrid of creative practice and rigorous research—benefit from a visible, collaborative vetting process that recognizes the labour of both the creator and the reviewer.

ASSEMBLAGE employs a non-anonymized review peer process characterized by: 

• Open Identities: Creators and reviewers are aware of each other’s identities from the start of the evaluation: with the exception that in the case of a recommendation of rejection the reviewers’ reports shall be anonymized (with the understanding that should the reviewers wish to disclose their identities, they may do so) 

• Open Peer Response: If a video essay is accepted for publication, the reviewers will publish responses alongside the video and the Creator Statement  

• Dialogue-Based: Reviewers and creators may engage in direct, constructive discussion during the revision phase to discuss any technical or conceptual issues related to the submission  

• Scholarly Contribution: originality, rigour, and engagement with existing research 

• Argumentation: clarity, coherence, and depth of analysis 

• Audiovisual Methodology: how effectively the video form produces knowledge 

• Integration of Sources: meaningful use of citations, media excerpts, and references 

• Technical Execution: clarity of sound, image, and editing 

• Ethical and Legal Compliance 

Initial Screening 

The editorial team performs a "desk review" for basic technical compliance and alignment with the journal's scope. 

Assignment 

If the submission passes the desk review, two expert reviewers are assigned. Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest immediately.  

Reviewers’ Reports 

Reviewers provide a report identifying major and minor issues. Given the nature of the medium, reviewers are encouraged to provide timestamped feedback for specific visual or audio cues. 

Conflicting Reviews  

Should reviewers furnish conflicting reviews, the editors reserve the right to either reject the submission outright or send it to a third reviewer. 

Possible outcomes 

• Accept  

• Accept with minor revisions 

• Revise and resubmit 

• Reject 

Editors may request revisions addressing both scholarly content and audiovisual form. 

Creators may be asked to re-edit or re-record segments of the video and/or refine their Creator Statements.  The original Creator Statement may be revised to reflect revision during the review process.  

ASSEMBLAGE will make every effort to return initial reviewers’ reports within two months of submission.