Our reviewers

Every published resource names the people who checked it, which aspect each of them checked, and the date they signed.

What a reviewer actually does

You are not asked to endorse the site, and you are not asked to vouch for traditions other than your own. You sign one dimension of one resource, and your name appears against that dimension only.

• Tradition accuracy. Is this an accurate representation of what this community actually does? Is the text right, is the attribution right, is the ritual context right? For non-religious material, a humanist celebrant signs this rather than a cleric.
• Pastoral appropriateness. Would you hand this to a family at a bedside? Chaplains and equivalent practitioners.
• Translation. Is the original-language text correct and is the romanisation usable by someone who does not read the script?
• Editorial. Is it clear and honestly labelled? Internal.

A single person can sign more than one dimension where their credentials independently qualify them for each. A Muslim healthcare chaplain might legitimately sign both tradition accuracy and pastoral appropriateness. A chaplain of a different faith signs only the second.

What we are asking for

Practitioners rather than public figures. Someone working in a hospital, hospice, congregation, prison or university who will read twenty resources carefully is worth considerably more to this than a well-known name who skims three.

The traditions we most need right now, in rough order:

• Muslim tradition accuracy, and Arabic-English translation
• Healthcare or hospice chaplaincy, any background, for pastoral review
• Jewish tradition accuracy, and Hebrew translation
• Humanist or non-religious pastoral practice
• Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant tradition accuracy
• Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh tradition accuracy

This is paid work

Review is part of the product rather than a favour, and building a trust system on donated professional expertise would be a poor foundation for it. Reviewers are paid per resource or on an advisory rate, and reviewers who stay on move to a retainer.

Your criticism is worth more to us than your signature

This is the part we mean most and it is easy to disbelieve, so here is the evidence. The structure of this site has already been wrong twice, and both times it was the content that exposed it rather than anyone’s design review. Once, a rule meant to protect quoted text was blocking our own writing. Once, the review model assumed every tradition has doctrine, which quietly made the non-religious material impossible to publish at all.

A practitioner is far more likely to find the third error than we are. So before we ask anyone to sign anything, we ask four questions:

• Are these the right dimensions to be signing?
• Is anything missing that you would need in order to approve this responsibly?
• Is there anything here that should not be published at all?
• Does the language of this site read wrong to someone in your tradition?

If the answer to any of them means changing the architecture, we would rather change it than ask you to work around it.

Getting in touch

See contact for how to reach us.

How the review process works in detail