February 22, 2010

Open Game Table Volume 2 - Peer Review Closed. Reviewers Revealed!

The peer review phase for the nominations made to Open Game Table Volume 2 has ended. As you can see from the numbers above - we recieved TONS of reviews from the peer reviewers. The average nomination recieved close to three score cards each, which is what I was shooting for. What remains are the 90 or so nominations (out of over 370) that didn't quite get the coverage they deserve.  So the OGT Editorial Board (listed below) is going to review these straglers over the next couple of days so that every single nominations gets at least two reviews. Once that is done, then the some serious heavy lifting is going to happen as the Editorial Board digs through all the data, cuts the nominations that scored low, and homes in on our A-list of top picks to be included in the anthology.

Please join me in thanking the Open Game Table Peer Reviewers. They have been immensely helpful in making OGT a possibility and a true community project!

Open Game Table Volume 2: Peer Review Panel
Aaron Broder
Brian Fitzpatrick
Cassey Toi
Enrique Bertran
Ben McFarland
James Iben
Jeffrey Horn
Mark Johnston
Michael Brennan
Michael Brewer
Page Bonifaci
Robert Sandlan
Steve Collington
Tommi Brander
Tony Law
Will Hopkins

Open Game Table Volume 2: Editorial Board
Jonathan Jacobs
Ben McFarland
Berin Kinsman
Kameron Franklin
Tony Law

Many of the above people you know as bloggers, authors, game designers and developers. It has been a privilege to work with all of them! I'm really looking forward to this next phase of OGT development: putting together the manuscript and finding artists who want to contribute. Our unofficial goal is to have everything done by GenCon 2010 so that Studio 2 Publishing can release the next volume of Open Game Table at the convention. So far - we are on track to meet that goal!

Now, for the more statistically inclined readers - follow the link below for some summary statistics of the reviews. Enjoy!


  1. Need to pivot the table so we can see % by reviewer (anonymously of course).

  2. One review had over 16%. Most of the other 4.7% - 8.7% range. Three reviewers were below 2% and two reviewers dropped out completely.

  3. It would be interesting to me to see what people thought of our posts. Obviously the anonymous data would be fine but to see how it was ranked would be interesting data to me. Which would help write articles that are more in line with what the community thinks is interesting and worthy of attention.

  4. It was interesting reviewing them - very helpful to see the kind of thing which other bloggers felt made a post suitable for nomination - not all obvious choices but all had merit. :)

    Glad to have had the opportunity to work on this.


By submitting your comment below, you agree to the blog's Terms of Service.