Submitting to RadioDoc Review

On this page you can find the different types of content we publish, detailed guidance for authors on format and guidance for audio reviewers. Articles and essays will be double-blind peer reviewed (you and your reviewer won't know each other's identity) by two reviewers. All other content will be subject to editorial review by two members of our editorial team or Editorial Board.

AUDIO REVIEWS (up to 3000 words or 10 minutes) (Editorial review)

Each issue we publish in-depth reviews of radio or podcast documentaries, features or other examples of the crafted (sometimes called ‘built speech’) factual form. Reviews can be written or audio format. Audio format can include clips of the documentary, providing they comply with appropriate copyright (discuss with the editorial team).

By documentary we mean audio stories, investigations, features and other examples of the crafted (sometimes called ‘built speech’) factual form. We are not thinking of conversational studio podcasts, celebrity interviews, live commentary, radio phone-ins or news magazines. We’re not looking for sound art, soundscape or field recordings or oral history recordings, unless they have a narrative frame. We’re not thinking of anything that’s all fiction or dramatized, though documentaries often include elements of dramatisation. However, we’re curious about all things audio, and have in the past run a special issue on audio drama. So if you’re not sure whether a work is suitable and want to push our boundaries, please get in touch and make your case!

AUDIO REVIEWS (maximum 3000 words or 10 minutes) (Editorial review)

We invite academics and programme-makers/producers to review a radio or podcast documentary or other audio feature (provided it is not their own work), but we also accept unsolicited proposals for a review. There are two ways to submit your proposal to review: respond to our call to review a selection of the best output each year or you can propose another piece of audio you would like to review. See detailed guidance at the bottom of this page.

Nominate a documentary to be reviewed: You can propose a piece of audio work for someone else to review in the journal. We're looking for documentaries and audio stories/features that have been broadcast or podcast on an accessible and well-known platform for a mainstream audience, or been played at an audio documentary festival, rather than private works of art or site-specific installations. If the documentary/work is not in English, we will need a transcript or voiceover in English so we can open it up to the widest range of reviewers. To nominate audio work, email radiodocreview@gmail.com

SCHOLARLY ARTICLES (up to 6500 words or 20 minutes) (Peer review)

We publish original essays and research articles about audio documentary and other crafted factual output. These should tackle in-depth one or more aspects of the craft, format, genre, production, reception or content of audio documentary as defined above, or comment on debates and developments within the field of study. We are interested in work that focuses on production, reception or the texts themselves, or on the study or teaching of audio documentary. We are especially keen to publish new work that helps the field of radio and podcast studies develop a common language or conceptual framework to discuss audio documentary, and/or advances theory. Please also see our Aims & Scope. Articles can be written or audio format. If you’re not sure whether your idea for an article or essay will meet our criteria, you’re welcome to email a 200 word abstract or outline to radiodocreview@gmail.com

OPEN SPACE (1500 words or 5 minutes maximum) (Editorial review)

In Open Space we publish short written (1500 words maximum) or audio (max duration 5 minutes) pieces that propose new avenues of discussion, research, review and production in the field of audio documentary and other crafted factual audio. You can be polemical in this section of RadioDoc Review or reflect news and developments in the field. You can also use Open Space to respond to reviews, interviews, essays and articles in previous editions of RadioDoc Review. Think of this section as a letters page plus. Open Space contributions can be written or audio format. If you would like to submit a piece for Open Space, email a brief outline of your idea for a piece to the editors radiodocreview@gmail.com

BOOK REVIEWS (up to 3000 words or 10 minutes) (Editorial review)

We publish reviews of books relating to the audio documentary/narrative podcast form, even if only in part: for example, a book on podcasting or a history of a broadcast organisation.

INTERVIEWS (up to 3000 words or 30 minutes) (Editorial review)

Documentary makers might not have the time or inclination to compose a lengthy essay and pursue it through peer review, so to make sure we draw on their critical insights at the cutting edge of our field, we invite scholars and programme-makers to submit edited, in-depth interviews with someone who has made or is making an important contribution to the field.

We are not looking for promotional, human interest or career guidance interviews, which can be found elsewhere. We are looking for interviews that examine in depth key aspects of audio documentary-making and other crafted factual/storytelling audio. This might be about editorial or ethical issues, audio craft, format and genre, audience, funding and commissioning, education and training, new and changing technology.

Your interviewee needs to be someone noteworthy and you need to make the case to us for why they are interesting and how this will contribute to our journal’s aims. Your interview needs to have a clear focus, such as their innovative editing style, their work on a particular subject matter, technical innovation within the industry, or a discussion about narrative form or funding for documentary. 

You should begin your interview with a brief introduction that makes the case for talking to this particular programme maker, setting the interview in context, and drawing out the ways this develops theory or knowledge in the field. You may also include other critical commentary on the interview content at other points in the article. You may edit interviews for brevity and relevance.

You may submit interviews as text or audio. You can submit up to 30 minutes or a written version of 3000 words. If in audio format, you will need to ensure good quality audio recording and editing so it’s a pleasurable listen for our audience. Before recording, we advise you consult our editors by emailing radiodocreview@gmail.com

Guidance for authors. 

You will submit online – see submission tab. When you submit, you’ll be prompted to enter a title, any co-author details, an abstract, keywords and to choose the type of work you’re submitting (audio review, article etc) and then to upload a file. If you’re submitting an article, please note you must remove identifying information from the file, ready for peer review. 

Please help us by submitting your work as a Word document as follows:

Main body of the article, followed by radio/podcast details in the case of an audio review, book publication details in the case of a book review and author details in all cases – a few words about yourself. We do not stipulate any other headings or sections.

Spelling – please follow Australian English spellings, eg -ise not -ize endings, colour not color. However we are happy for you to use a style and vocabulary that reflects English where you are. Remember that we have an international readership, so please find a way to explain any special terms that might not be used everywhere. 

Formatting font, line spacing etc: we will format the text in our house style.

Academic referencing: Please cite sources, including audio, TV or web, using author-date referencing with a reference list at the end, using the APA style. Open Space and reviews may not need to use academic referencing, but if you do refer to complex specialist sources or several sources, you should use author-date references because it avoids clutter and digressions on the page. If in doubt, our editorial team will advise.

Footnotes or endnotes: use sparingly.

Audio reviewer guidance:

We’re looking for in-depth discussion of interesting qualities of the documentary you choose, rather than a good/bad judgement or a must-listen recommendation – these are on offer to readers elsewhere. Reviewers are invited to address the following criteria, but should avoid trying to cover too many of these in one review. It’s better to address one aspect in depth than provide a superficial account of too many aspects:

  1. STORYTELLING STRENGTH/NARRATIVE STRUCTURE (micro and macro story arcs, episodic structure, use of scenes, episode endings, resolution, techniques of storytelling)
  2. ORIGINALITY AND INNOVATION (what if anything is new, and why this is appealing)
  3. AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT and HOSTING/NARRATION (what techniques are used to pull audience in and connect with audience, how is it hosted, narrated or presented, if at all.)
  4. RESEARCH AND REPORTING (depth, breadth, and accuracy of knowledge accessed)
  5. COMPLEXITY OF INFORMATION AND PORTRAYALS (interplay between content/research and form/audio medium and portrayal of place/people, challenges for the listener.)
  6. EMOTIVENESS AND EMPATHY (identification with talent/characters, affect, techniques that may evoke visceral response – whether positive or negative, eg humour, affection, or anxiety, shock)
  7. CRAFT AND ARTISTRY (use of sound and music, mix of sound, scripting, pacing, aesthetic considerations)
  8. ETHICAL PRACTICE (fair, honest and considerate treatment of topics and talent, journalistic/editorial issues such as impartiality)
  9. PUBLIC BENEFIT and IMPACT (contribution to store of knowledge and evidence of merit, e.g. awards or other forms of formal recognition, evidence of changes in public attitudes, policy; audience feedback; professional feedback)