Peer review is an essential component of both the editorial process and publication quality at Central Michigan University Press. A well-crafted review is also vital in helping authors and game designers as they revise their work.

The press uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning the identities of both the authors/designers and the peer reviewers are concealed from one another. All peer reviews are confidential and will not be used for any other purpose than to guide the editorial decisions of the press and improve the content of the game without the expressed written permission of the review author. All game submissions are the private, confidential property of the author/game designer, and reviewers should keep the submissions and their content strictly confidential.

Below are questions to guide reviewers for either type of review they may be asked to engage in:

Subject Matter Peer Review Questions

  • Is the content of this game free of errors?
  • Do the learning objectives and the subject matter content of the game align?
  • Are figures and data within the game necessary, legible, and helpful?

Game Mechanics Peer Review Questions

  • Are rules clear and detailed enough that you feel you could run the game?
  • Is the game engaging enough that even if you aren’t a content expert you would want to play it again?
  • After playing the game do you perceive that you have an increased awareness of the learning objectives?
  • Do the game mechanics reinforce the learning objectives?
  • If there is a win objective, is it clear and realistic? If there isn’t a win objective, does it make sense with the goals of the game?
  • In what ways is the game innovative?
  • Are there comparable games on this topic? If so, please identify them.

Your final review should contain: 1) an objective assessment of both the technical rigor and the novelty of the game; 2) a specific recommendation (Accept without Revision, Revise, or Reject); 3) a justification for your recommendation; and 4) a summary of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the game.

  • If your recommendation is to Reject the submission, please give a detailed explanation of your reasoning.
  • If your recommendation is to Revise the submission, please indicate whether it is a Major or Minor revision and furnish the author/designer with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary. Please also indicate to the editor whether you would be willing to review the revised game in the future.