16:9 in English

16:9 is a Danish journal of film studies. Approximately five times a year we feature an article in English by a renowned film scholar.

Please contact editor Mathias Bonde Korsgaard for more information or if you have material that you want us to consider for publication.

Peer review

16:9 offers a blind peer review process. It applies to written articles in the ”In English” category as well as to video-essays that have separate guidelines.

The peer review is presented in the form of a grading system from A to D:

  • A. Publishable
  • B. Publishable with minor alterations
  • C. Publishable with major alterations
  • D. Not publishable

The grade will be accompanied by a brief review (approximately 1-2 pages) that includes all suggested alterations. The following questions will be the focus of the review:

  1. Is the topic clearly articulated?
  2. Does the article raise relevant questions?
  3. Is the article written in a clear language?
  4. Is new information brought to light?
  5. Is the article interesting from a methodological and/or theoretical perspective?
  6. Is the argumentation clear and precise?
  7. Are the headings good and catchy?
  8. How can the article be improved (e.g. structure, readibility, topics, sources)?
  9. Other comments

Guidelines for video-essays

All peer-reviewed video-essays must be accompanied by a short supplementary statement (4.000-6.000 characters). The statement should clarify the research aims, and can also be used as a means to situate the essay in relation to extant research and/or as a means to describe and reflect upon the process of work and how the audiovisual format assists in reaching the stated research aims. The video-essay should preferably be able to stand on its own.

The peer review is presented in the form of a grading system from A to D:

  • A. Publishable
  • B. Publishable with minor alterations
  • C. Publishable with major alterations
  • D. Not publishable

The grade will be accompanied by a brief review (approximately 1-2 pages) that includes all suggested alterations. The following questions will be the focus of the review:

  1. Is the research aim clear?
  2. Does the essay pose relevant questions?
  3. Does the essay display communicative clarity?
  4. Is new information brought to light?
  5. How might the essay be improved?
  6. Other comments