Assessing new knowledges that emerge from expositions of practice as research puts a particular kind of responsibility on peer-reviewers (as well as editors, and ultimately also readers) that goes beyond a simple application of expertise. While a reviewer’s expertise may tell us which elements of a submission are already dealt with in a particular field, the other, arguably more interesting and innovative parts of a submission are more complex to assess, since they are by definition departures from the very field a reviewer is an expert in.
Insofar as artistic research takes place within rich fabrics of practice, it is always also embedded in a multiplicity of languages – both verbal and non-verbal ones. Requiring submissions in English is – in some aspects – like asking for text as the only mode in which to report on an artistic research project: fixed formats that restrict options of articulation.
Achieving quality in artistic research must be a key concern. In academia, quality is often assessed with regard to the content of a research project, e.g. how novel and substantiated findings are; how those findings are presented usually does not matter. In art, however, both form and content are crucial; hence, the notion of quality must apply to more aspects of a project and in particular to the relations between them.