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 interactive design or data visualisation.
⚠ Interactive multimedia research review (adapted IMDPC model)
This manuscript is an interactive multimedia research article (navigable visualisation, interactive narrative, scrollytelling, exploratory application). It consists of two components that are evaluated jointly, and neither functions without the other:
Component A · Interactive multimedia product
The research in interactive form. Articulates argument, evidence and knowledge through interactivity (navigation, exploration, data visualisation). Self-contained HTML5 package.
Component B · Adapted IMDPC research statement
Textual document (1,000–1,500 words) that formalises the research rationale: Introduction, Interactive Methodology, Design and Interaction Decisions, Theoretical Positioning, Contribution and Limitations.
Important: The interactive product retains creative and design freedom; the statement guarantees research rigour. The product is not an 'appendix' to the statement, nor is the statement a 'summary' of the product. Both are complementary components of a single research article.

Review criteria for interactive multimedia research

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

1
Interactive pertinence
Eliminatory
The interactive form is not incidental: the argument requires navigation, exploration or data manipulation to be articulated. The choice of interactive 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 or a static audiovisual piece? If the answer is yes, the interactive pertinence is insufficient.
Format necessity Interactive justification Not incidental
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
2
Methodological rigour
Eliminatory
The research process (data or corpus used, selection criteria, analytical approach) is documented so that another researcher could assess its coherence. Sections I and M of the statement provide the necessary information.
Guiding questions: Are the data or corpus used justified? Are the selection criteria made explicit? Is the research tradition underpinning the work correctly identified? Could the process be replicated?
Documented data Explicit criteria Replicability Sections I + M
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
3
Design–argument coherence
Eliminatory
The design and interaction decisions construct evidence and are not merely decorative. Section D of the statement justifies how the information architecture, navigation flows, interaction mechanisms and data visualisation sustain the argument.
Guiding questions: Does the interactivity contribute to the argument or merely illustrate it? Are the key design decisions (navigation, flows, visualisation) justified? Does the information architecture address the research question?
Argumentative interaction Justified design Navigation = analysis Section D
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
4
Contribution to knowledge
Eliminatory
The product generates new knowledge (analytical, exploratory, comparative, visual) that did not previously exist. Sections P and C of the statement situate the contribution within the context of the existing literature and identify limitations and implications.
Guiding questions: What do we know after exploring this product that we did not know before? Is it a substantive contribution to the field? Does it engage with previous works? Are limitations and digital preservation considerations identified?
New knowledge Engagement with literature Substantive contribution Sections P + C
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
5
Technical quality and accessibility
Non-eliminatory
The product works correctly in modern browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge), the interface is usable and accessibility is adequate. The technical quality is sufficient to sustain the argument without errors or technical limitations distracting from the content.
Guiding questions: Does the product work without errors in current browsers? Is the navigation intuitive? Have WCAG 2.1 accessibility guidelines been considered? Are loading times acceptable? Does the product work without an Internet connection (self-contained package)?
Browser compatibility Usability WCAG 2.1 Self-contained package ≤ 100 MB
Score:
1 2 3 4 5
6

Final publication recommendation

The reviewer issues their editorial recommendation on the product + 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 product and the statement.