logistics, logistics...so setting aside the selection of approval panelists (And I'd susggest five or six or more, but only three to review any single story and that on a rotating basis -- i.e. they don't get to pick what they review, they review what they are given.)
And the submissions are stripped of author identification by say the moderator, so the panel just gets the story (and any incidental information deemed necessary.)
All the reviewers are listed but not the names of the three reviewing the story -- feedback and criticism is compiled and returned to the author, privately, again, via a single point of contact.
And it could be set up that even if the moderator knows who is submitting, they can't stack the deck -- that the panel review is on a constantly revolving set, that may occasionally overlap....
So you have:
Amy, Sue, Carla Ella, Mary, Amy Sue, Carla, Ella Carla, Ella, Mary, etc.
If there's an iffy one, we could pass it to the next panel set to review, with only one carry over for continuity.
RE: Panelists, we could do the "know you --volunteer" route but hold an equal number of open volunteer review slots. So we have four folks who stat but we offer four additional slots pulled at random (we can have some kind of screening process) so the harping of favoritism could be mitigated.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-01-25 12:34 am (UTC)And the submissions are stripped of author identification by say the moderator, so the panel just gets the story (and any incidental information deemed necessary.)
All the reviewers are listed but not the names of the three reviewing the story -- feedback and criticism is compiled and returned to the author, privately, again, via a single point of contact.
And it could be set up that even if the moderator knows who is submitting, they can't stack the deck -- that the panel review is on a constantly revolving set, that may occasionally overlap....
So you have:
Amy, Sue, Carla
Ella, Mary, Amy
Sue, Carla, Ella
Carla, Ella, Mary, etc.
If there's an iffy one, we could pass it to the next panel set to review, with only one carry over for continuity.
RE: Panelists, we could do the "know you --volunteer" route but hold an equal number of open volunteer review slots. So we have four folks who stat but we offer four additional slots pulled at random (we can have some kind of screening process) so the harping of favoritism could be mitigated.