Reviewing creative anthropology guidelines

Abstract

Anyone can review creative anthropology. The review process for creative work does not rely on every reviewer having technical knowledge of the genre. It involves engaging at a subjective and experiential level, as well as via a rigorous scholarly lens you might be more used to. Peer reviewing creative anthropological work is an invitation—a kind of meeting place where thought and form intertwine, opening space not just for critique but for mutual imagination. (Look at ‘Empathy and Dialogue: Embracing the Art of Creative Review’ in this Anthropology and Humanism issue to learn more about the philosophical underpinnings and politics of creative review.) A good review is also a care review. Care is operationalized through thinking together; that is, thinking with the author instead of against them—a collaboration of sorts that moves against the grain of judgmental, evaluative forms of review. Creative anthropology thrives on exploration, and so should your review—but how?

To provide a formative, engaged review, there are multiple layers that you might want to consider, each offering a different way to evaluate, understand, and respond to the piece. This multi-layered approach allows you to appreciate the work's richness and the intentions behind it, while also providing constructive feedback that helps the creator refine and develop their ideas. In the below section, we break down five of these layers including the experiential, scholarly, anthropological, subject expert, and technical layers.

A review can aim to use associative thinking, a way of drawing connections—between ideas, concepts, or experiences, or with other art, scholarly work, or popular culture—that may not be immediately obvious but help to illuminate the work in a new light. Asking questions of the author/creator is also a valuable strategy, in order to shift into this mode. What might you suggest the author themselves reflect on, in order to advance the piece? Can you distinguish between major comments that you think are essential for the success of the piece, and more open-ended reflections? We ask the reviewer to look at the text as a creative endeavor that is open to diverse readings, meaning there is less focus on giving the author things to fix, correct or add, and more focus on assisting the author to walk this creative process of revision by sharing ideas or asking questions.

Peer review, especially for creative work, is a way of breathing life into the practice of feedback—of inviting dialogue rather than prescribing fixes. It is less about judgment and more about fostering a space where work can resonate, catch light, shift shape. The task here is not to refine or correct but to engage openly with the textures of the work, to notice where it lands, where it surprises, where it might wander or pause. This approach allows us to sidestep the urge to perfect, instead inviting the work to reach deeper or perhaps to tilt its gaze.

The material will eventually pass through a copy editing process, so there is no need to zero in on every grammatical or punctuation detail. Yet if certain turns of phrase, rhythms, or visual choices stand out—whether as points of clarity, disorientation, or beauty—this can be worth noting. Sharing your impressions without feeling the urge to “correct” creates room for the author to feel into their own choices and consider how they work, or do not, in this moment. In this way, creative peer review becomes a practice of honoring and engaging with the work as it is, while gently probing its possibilities.

Let feedback be a way of seeing, not shaping; a way of listening, not correcting.