UAsite15 · Theodore Review
TR 2025: The First Operating Year
Theodore Review is an independent, student-led journal built on disciplined editorial standards: evidence-first argumentation, verifiable citations, and process-driven decision-making.
Quick Navigation
Reader View
Switching views updates KPIs and charts to reflect the selected section.
Key Metrics
A small set of hard numbers that define scope and standards for 2025.
Submissions
0
Academic 4 · Commentary 18
Accepted / Published
0
Stable output in Year 1
Overall Acceptance Rate
0%
17 / 22
Rejected
0
Academic 2 · Commentary 3
Method Note
This page reproduces the annual totals from the 2025 report and recalculates view-specific subsets using the same definitions.
Submission Mix & Acceptance
In 2025, “Commentary” and “Academic” ran through different quality gates.
Submission Composition
By section (annual)
Academic: 4
Commentary: 18
Acceptance Rate
Commentary 83.33% · Academic 50%
Academic rejections were driven by citation non-compliance and unverifiable sources. Commentary rejections were primarily risk-and-fact control.
Accepted vs Rejected
Split by section
The contrast is structural: “Academic” is gated by verifiability and standards; “Commentary” is gated by risk management and evidentiary discipline.
Review Workflow
A process chain designed to reduce arbitrary decisions and increase auditability.
Core Stages
End-to-end pipeline
- Intake: scope check, plagiarism scan, baseline formatting.
- Assignment: reviewer matching and conflict-of-interest screening.
- Review: structured feedback and revision requests when needed.
- Verification: source audit and citation consistency checks.
- Decision: publish / revise / reject with written rationale.
Risk & Integrity Controls
Especially for commentary pieces
- Evidence thresholds for claims, accusations, and high-impact narratives.
- Second-pass review triggered for disputed or borderline submissions.
- Language adjustments to lower platform/author risk without weakening argument quality.
Rejections & Quality Gates
Rejections are treated as feedback loops that harden standards.
Academic Gate
Primary failure modes
- Citation format and consistency failures (Chicago compliance).
- Unverifiable sources or fabricated references.
- Weak evidentiary chain between claim and source.
Commentary Gate
Primary failure modes
- High platform or personal risk without sufficient evidence.
- Overheated inference driven by sentiment rather than proof.
- Insufficient factual attribution for strong conclusions.
Decision Traceability
What is preserved
- Written rationale for each decision.
- Reviewer notes and revision history.
- Audit trail for citation verification.
Benchmarking
Positioning TR as a standards-first student publication with institutional discipline.
What TR Optimizes For
- Process legitimacy over volume.
- Verifiability over persuasion-by-style.
- Editorial accountability over informal gatekeeping.
Where TR Is Heading
- Clearer reviewer rubrics and templates.
- More external reviewers and tighter COI policy.
- Stronger archival and DOI-ready infrastructure.
2026 Outlook
From building the skeleton to building strength.
Editorial Strengthening
- Formalize reviewer rubrics (claims, evidence, counterargument, writing clarity).
- Introduce structured revision windows and final checks.
- Expand the pool of external and specialist reviewers.
Operations & Infrastructure
- Publication archive with version history.
- Governance and ethics pages as public accountability.
- Dashboard extension: turnaround time, revision cycles, and reviewer load.
Organization
A visible structure reduces trust cost.
Editorial Board
- Editor-in-ChiefSteven Zhang
- Honorary EditorKeyan
- Managing EditorZheng
Review Committee
- ReviewerBai
- ReviewerVincent · Li
- External ReviewersAnonymous
Operations & Technical
- Technical SupportJiao
- Budget & OperationsWu