Editorial Guidelines

MEDSL reviews proposed resources to ensure they utilize and/or present factually accurate information. Information is considered to be factually accurate when:

• Statements contained in the resource originate from credible sources such as state or local election officials, peer-reviewed research, or reputable non-profit organizations.
• The resource presents election laws, procedures, and policies in ways that accurately reflect administrative practice, as verified through consultation with practitioners.
• When citing statistics or examples, the resource provides appropriate context and frames them in a way that is not misleading or overstating conclusions.

MEDSL reviews proposed resources to ensure the recommendations or strategies presented therein are relevant to election topics discussed on the Resource Hub. Resource content is considered to be relevant when:

• The resource directly addresses an aspect of the election topic in focus, either by expanding on existing findings, addressing research gaps, or highlighting the real-world implementation of strategies or recommendations.
• The resource presents the current state of knowledge in election administration or research. Research published within the past 10 years will be preferred, but foundational resources that remain relevant to the field will also be included.
• The resource provides insights, recommendations, or findings that advance or inform academic literature, policy, or administrative practice related to the topic in focus. 
• If the resource provides findings or recommendations from case studies in other countries, those findings and recommendations can be applied directly and reasonably to U.S. elections.

MEDSL reviews proposed resources to ensure they adhere to principles of nonpartisanship. Content is considered to be presented in a nonpartisan manner when:

• The author or their organizational/institutional affiliation does not engage in partisan advocacy, including official support of candidates, political parties, or ballot initiatives. If the author or organization/institution does engage in partisan advocacy, the resource does not use partisan framing or language or call for support of an ideological position.
• The resource avoids asserting claims that imply judgment (e.g., “rigged,” “fraudulent,” “suppression,”) unless clearly defined and supported by empirical evidence.
• When appropriate and relevant, the resource incorporates or discusses diverse perspectives or approaches to the elections topic in focus, provided they are supported by empirical evidence.

MEDSL reviews proposed resources to ensure their content and recommendations are empirically grounded. A resource from an academic institution is considered to be empirically grounded when: 

• The resource clearly details its methodological approach, including the statistical analyses, case studies, and surveys conducted. Preference will be given to peer-reviewed publications.
• The resource explains key elements of the research design, including data sources, sample selection, and data collection and analysis methods.
• The conclusions or recommendations in the resource are supported by quantitative and/or qualitative data or systematic observation, and any claims are tied to this evidence or to other credible research.

A resource from a non-academic institution is considered to be empirically grounded when: 

• The recommendations or claims in the resource draw on data from a relevant academic study or on direct practitioner experience, and clearly describe the nature of the data collection and the method of analysis.
  • Practitioner experience is defined as a demonstrated history of administering elections at the state or local level as a poll worker, county clerk, or chief state election official, among other roles.
• If the resource draws upon academic research, that research is appropriately cited, and the resource accurately represents the scope and conclusions of the cited work.
• If the resource draws on practitioner experience, it provides sufficient detail about the context of implementation, including relevant state law, to allow readers to assess its applicability to a given administrative context.