Project Anywhere is a vehicle for hosting and disseminating art and research undertaken outside traditional exhibition circuits. It is perhaps best imagined as a project space comprising the entire globe (and beyond) in which the role of curator is replaced with the type of peer review model typically endorsed by a refereed journal. Project Anywhere endorses a rigorous two-stage peer review process. First, double blind peer evaluations of all project proposals by artist academics of international standing determine which projects will be hosted. A second open peer review process of final project outcomes determines which projects are archived in our “2nd level archive” (all other projects are placed in the general project archive at the cessation of the hosting period).
Evaluation criteria for proposals:
1. The proposed project is identifiable with following definition of research: Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the application of existing knowledge so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings.
2. The proposal makes a clear and compelling claim for the project’s potential to contribute to knowledge in an identified field of creative practice (the project can be speculative, experimental or discursive in nature). The claim should be made in the form of a hypothesis or proposition and it should identify relevant literature and aligned creative works; it may identify the project’s potential to build upon creative precedents; it may extend or contradict existing methodologies.
3. The project description is articulated clearly; ideas are comprehensible.
Evaluation criteria for final project outcomes:
1. The project’s implications for its field are communicable, its research outcomes are clear, and it makes a significant contribution to knowledge.
2. The methodology is substantiated by evidential documentation and this is presented in a form that enables the dissemination of knowledge.
After writing each project evaluation, our blind peer reviewers (all of which are artist academics of international standing) are asked to provide a score. These scores are tallied to produce our final project rankings.
1. Reject: Proposal/project inappropriate or has little merit.
2. Probable reject: Basic flaws in content or very poorly presented.
3. Marginal tend to reject: Not significantly flawed; major effort necessary to make acceptable.
4. Marginal tend to accept: Content has merit, but could be improved.
5. Clear accept: Project meets evaluation criteria; improvements may be advisable but acceptable as is.
6. Must accept: Outstanding proposal/project. Suggested improvements still appropriate.
Project Anywhere retains all verification materials that demonstrate that evaluation criteria are met. These materials can be made available for external auditing where appropriate.