The Editorial Review Process

You can’t trust everything you read or watch on the internet.

That’s why we’ve prioritized a rigorous editorial review process for every resource we create and webinar we present.

It’s why we require reputable and original sources for any claim our content contributors provide.

It’s also why one of our content contributors, a professor, told us, “This was the most rigorous process I’ve ever been through” regarding our resource review process.

ASHA doesn’t require any CEUs to be reviewed, but this is a quality assurance procedure we implemented to ensure that the content SLPs consume is relevant, up-to-date, and non-biased.

The term editorial review refers to a process involving single-blind or double-blind critical inspection and appraisal of many types of work, including research articles, systematic review, literature review, meta-analyses, tutorials, position papers, etc. The editorial review process is NOT limited to research articles alone. Editorial review is an integral aspect of scholarly development outside of refereed journals.



Resources are clinically relevant documents and videos that cover anything from topic overviews to deeper exploration. They come in multiple forms, ranging from tutorials to prepared in-services ready to use in clinical practice. A resource is meant to be used by clinicians.

Evidence-based information pulled from research articles and experience is compiled into each resource with citations and a reference list. Each resource then goes through a single-blind or double-blind editorial review process.

The final product is a PDF or video that provides a simplified and holistic explanation of a complex topic that a research article alone couldn't cover. Resources are NOT original research and are not designed for continuing education credit.


A Content Reviewer (CR) examines the mechanics (spelling, grammar, APA formatting, etc.) of each submission. Editors may also discuss whether the material meets the needs and interests of our membership.



An Editorial Reviewer is familiar with research and clinical literature in the resource topic area. Our Editorial Reviewers are typically PhD, EdD, or other research educated faculty, as well as some with clinical doctorates, master’s degrees, and backgrounds in development of clinical materials.


Authors who wish to submit a resource must reach out to the Content Manager (CM) to discuss an area of interest. The CM may also reach out to potential authors if specific requests for a resource are made. The CM provides the prospective author with “Contribution Guidelines,” that  contain a general set of criteria including originality, attribution, organization of key points/objectives, etc.


Once the draft is received, Reviewer 1 (R1) completes the first review following a set of guidelines that includes emphasis on best practice, accurate integration of relevant literature, and relevancy of cited materials. After this first review, R1 discusses the resource with the Managing Editor recommending minor or major revisions from the author with a subsequent re-review (R2) after changes are made within 2-4 weeks.


Following R2, most resources only require editorial clean-up and are ready for publication. A reference recommendation, author name/collective name if no author listed, and date are applied, and the resource will be distributed to the collective, usually with a short video explanation from the author or from the content reviewer.

You do NOT have to be a mentor to Create a resource! Please reach out if you are interested in contributing!