Guiding principle
The review must be formative, providing sufficient and well-reasoned arguments about which aspects could be improved. Criteria 1–4 are eliminatory. Criterion 5 (technical quality) may trigger a request for technical revision, but not rejection if the content is sound. It is recommended that at least one of the two reviewers has experience in audiovisual practice.
⚠ Audiovisual research review (IMDPC model)
This manuscript is an audiovisual research article (video essay). It consists of two components that are evaluated jointly, and neither functions without the other:
Component A · Audiovisual piece
The research in audiovisual form. Articulates argument, evidence and knowledge through editing (image/sound/text). Creative and formal freedom.
Component B · IMDPC research statement
Textual document (1,500–2,500 words) that formalises the research rationale: Introduction, Audiovisual Methodology, Editing Decisions, Theoretical Positioning, Contribution and Limitations.
Important: The audiovisual piece retains creative freedom; the statement guarantees research rigour. The video is not an 'appendix' to the statement, nor is the statement a 'summary' of the video. Both are complementary components of a single research article.

Review criteria for audiovisual research

Reviewers assess both components (piece + statement) jointly. Each criterion includes a guiding question and a score from 1 to 5 (visible only to the editorial team).

1
Audiovisual pertinence
Eliminatory
The audiovisual form is not incidental: the argument requires image, sound and editing to be articulated. The choice of audiovisual format is justified as a necessary medium, not merely a convenient one.
Guiding question: Could this argument be formulated with equal effectiveness as a textual article? If the answer is yes, the audiovisual pertinence is insufficient.
Format necessity Audiovisual justification Not incidental
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
2
Methodological rigour
Eliminatory
The research process (corpus selection, analysis, editing) is documented so that another researcher could assess its coherence. Sections I and M of the IMDPC statement provide the necessary information.
Guiding questions: Is the corpus selection justified? Are the criteria made explicit? Could the process be replicated with the information provided?
Documented corpus Explicit criteria Replicability Sections I + M
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
3
Form–argument coherence
Eliminatory
The editing decisions construct evidence and are not merely illustrative or aesthetic. Section D of the IMDPC statement justifies how the formal structure (cuts, juxtapositions, rhythm, sound layers, superimposed text) sustains the argument.
Guiding questions: Does the formal structure contribute to the argument or merely decorate it? Are the key editing decisions justified? Are discarded alternatives discussed and why?
Argumentative editing Justified decisions Form = evidence Section D
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
4
Contribution to knowledge
Eliminatory
The piece generates new knowledge (analytical, critical, sensorial, comparative) that did not previously exist. Sections P and C of the IMDPC statement situate the contribution within the context of the existing literature.
Guiding questions: What do we know after viewing/reading this article that we did not know before? Is it a substantive contribution to the field? Does it engage with previous works (textual and/or videographic)?
New knowledge Engagement with literature Substantive contribution Sections P + C
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
5
Technical quality and accessibility
Non-eliminatory
The video is technically competent and accessible: adequate resolution, clear and intelligible audio, accurate subtitles (mandatory), and the technical quality is sufficient to sustain the argument without distracting from the content.
Guiding questions: Is the technical quality sufficient to sustain the argument? Are the subtitles accurate? Is the audio intelligible? Does the resolution allow the necessary visual detail to be appreciated?
Resolution ≥ 1080p Levelled audio Subtitles Accessibility
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
6

Final publication recommendation

The reviewer issues their editorial recommendation on the piece + statement as a whole

✓
Accept
Publishable as is
↻
Minor revision
Minor changes needed
⟳
Major revision
Substantive changes needed
✕
Reject
Not publishable
Σ

Overall score

Final numerical score integrating the 5 dimensions. Used by the editorial team to rank publication priority. Visible only to the editorial team. In case of revision, the author may modify both the video and the statement.