All public-facing products including print and virtual newsletters, stories, websites, videos, tools must be reviewed by subject matter experts and by the communications team. Any product going to legislators should also be reviewed by IARC leadership.
The structure and order of review depends on the individual and the project, but the review process should be thorough and redundant (i.e. multiple people should review products in several iterations). Expect back and forth. Several things will help ensure that review is comprehensive and low stress.
Several folks on our team are great editors, but for certain high profile items it can be helpful to get a professional review. If funds are available, Nate Bauer or Alison York can edit your publication. Sam Bishop can usually edit press releases and feature stories.
Know your reviewers and what is an acceptable turnaround time. While it may be appropriate to give internal reviewers only a few days, outside reviewers will appreciate more time. You can make enemies by asking Tribal entities, agencies, or others slammed with requests, to review materials too quickly. If you are under tight deadlines, it can be helpful to let reviewers know in advance when they might expect to see drafts.
When asking for review it can be helpful to mention who is reviewing the product and the stage you are currently at. This tells the reviewer you have a plan and discourages them from forwarding it on to other people for review before you are ready. It also ensures that they “stay in their lane” and a scientist doesn’t dive into design review if the comms team is next, and vice versa. See example:
April 1 - Review by X, subject matter expert
April 5 - Review by Y, science communicator
April 10 - Current review stage by Z, external reviewer
The communications review Google calendar can be used to request review. Make an event on the date you need the review back by, tag all the individuals from the comms team who you think might be appropriate, describe what kind of comments you are looking for and how many reviews you hope to receive. This not only places the review on everyone’s calendar, but when someone accepts, everyone else knows. So if you tag 6 people, but need 2 reviewers, other people know when you’ve reached your review goal.
Copy editing: check for spelling and grammar errors.
Is all jargon replaced or explained?
Are UAF and IARC logos present and up-to-date?
AA/EO statement included?
[group name] is part of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Are text boxes, photos, graphics aligned? Is there enough space between elements to ensure items are not cramped and hard to read? Is anything too close to page edges and/or outside margins?
Do links work correctly?
Are the correct colors used? Tints of colors are OK but don’t change color itself. Is there enough contrast between colored text and/or colored backgrounds? See color guide
Are fonts, colors, and other elements consistent and repeating to ensure cohesiveness?
Are all links embedded in text, and descriptively written?