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:
- Is the topic clearly articulated?
- Does the article raise relevant questions?
- Is the article written in a clear language?
- Is new information brought to light?
- Is the article interesting from a methodological and/or theoretical perspective?
- Is the argumentation clear and precise?
- Are the headings good and catchy?
- How can the article be improved (e.g. structure, readibility, topics, sources)?
- 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:
- Is the research aim clear?
- Does the essay pose relevant questions?
- Does the essay display communicative clarity?
- Is new information brought to light?
- How might the essay be improved?
- Other comments