Jump to content
Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.
Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:19 PM
Posted 27 May 2013 - 07:15 PM
Right now the ones responsible for peer reviewing have been Crossbones+ members but Drew moves them from Draft to Under Review. Moderators also have the ability since they too are vetted. However, there is nothing that designates a reviewer as "expert" so for us peer reviewed refers to the fact that the article probably isn't total bullshit. Of course, the community at large tends to smack down the articles that do tend to be very flawed.. it does provide some visible feedback for reviewers as well.
There is no timeframe for being under review. Drew and I spoke about whether or not there should be some sort of "meh.. it's probably okay" state an article is in but staying in the "under review" state tends to be that.
Also it is possible that for recent articles that they have been approved and are "Under Review" but have a publish date set to sometime in the future. This is just to spread out the information flow and make sure that your article gets some frontpage time for people to comment on it and review it.
Edited by Michael Tanczos, 27 May 2013 - 07:15 PM.
Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:42 PM
I see what happened now.
Both articles were set to a future publication date (which I overlooked originally). One became available for "general review" today and has been getting hits and such ever since, and now also shows as "under review" in the main article list.
Since this is kind of a confusion point, and seems to have tripped up other authors, it may be worth specifically calling out someplace (or someplace more obvious if it's already documented) so that people understand the pipeline and don't feel like their articles are just going into a black hole.
GameDev.net™, the GameDev.net logo, and GDNet™ are trademarks of GameDev.net, LLC.