Evaluation Criteria

PURE3D accepts projects which use 3D models as the central component for making a scholarly argument, developing hypotheses, or answering research questions. Before 3D scholarly editions are published within our infrastructure, peer reviewers will evaluate them based on PURE3D’s criteria. This is to ensure that the contents of the edition are of high enough quality to grant publication, and to provide feedback to the authors.

To be appropriate for publication, the edition must meet the following criteria relating to value and user experience:

• the 3D model is at the center of the intended argument or narrative
• there is complete documentation on the technical creation of the 3D model
• textual and other multimodal content is appropriate and is effective in contextualizing the 3D
• the platform’s technical affordances are used in a coherent and engaging way

Peer-reviewers will be asked to rate specific questions based on these criteria and provide a detailed explanation for their rankings.

We work with two rounds of review, both performed by the same two reviewers. The first round is meant to offer specific suggestions on how to move forward with the edition, while the final provides general feedback.

First (Alpha) review: this will be conducted after the author has completed a draft (aka Alpha) version of their edition. This is due to the nature of 3D publishing and the difficulty in implementing certain changes once a work is complete. By reviewing an alpha version, authors have the opportunity to improve their submissions and implement suggestions before completion. Therefore, the goal of this round of revisions is to provide constructive criticism and suggestions.

Review type: This round of review operates as single-blind, as we cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author’s identity. The reviewers will be anonymous at this stage, but they will be placed on our list of reviewers on the PURE3D website.

Optional collaboration: At the end of this review, peer-reviewers with a specialization in the edition content will have the opportunity to provide further feedback and assistance by becoming project collaborators. The goal here is to offer collaborative opportunities for our community. Both the reviewer and the author will have to agree to this collaboration, after which they can work together openly towards strengthening the final edition. The time investment required for this will depend on the author’s vision for the project and how much further work is required. The reviewer will receive credit for their involvement as a project collaborator, and will not be required to perform the final evaluation of the edition.

Final review: The second round of review will be performed once the author has implemented the changes suggested after the first round, and their edition is at a final stage to be evaluated before publication. As mentioned, this review will be performed by the same reviewers as the first round, unless they become collaborators, in which case, a new reviewer will be found. Where the first review was highly detailed, this review will provide an overview of the edition and suggest any outstanding changes to be made.

Review type: Once the edition is published, these reviews will also be openly published on PURE3D. While our aim is towards open publication, transparency of evaluations, and giving credit to the work of reviewers, we recognize that not everyone would like their names attached to a review. This is why reviewers will have the option to remain anonymous, or simply have their names published in our list of reviewers online.