About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Each issue of the journal reflects the best of the conference papers presented at the annual West Coast Liberal Studies Symposium. The papers are not thematically linked, but instead reflect an interdisciplinary focus in the construction of argument and the development of ideas. The cover artwork is submitted by a current student or alumni from one of the participating universities and colleges.
Peer Review Process
Each submission is reviewed by two faculty members, associated with the participating universities and colleges, who have the knowledge and expertise to provide a critical review of each paper submitted. Submissions are ranked on a 4-point scale in the categories of: Content, Organization, Analysis, Mechanics and Style.
Western Tributaries Marking Rubric
| Awesome--4 | Better Than Average--3 | Cuts the Mustard--2 | Doesn’t Cut it--1 |
Content Score: | The problem or topic discussed is well-defined, specific and appropriate for the length of the paper. Shows an excellent understanding of the paper topic. Paper has a strong and logical interdisciplinary focus. | The problem or topic is not as specific or narrow and/or may be inappropriate for the length of the paper. Shows a good understanding of the paper topic. Paper has a good interdisciplinary focus. | Problem or topic is appropriate but not clearly defined. Shows a weak understanding of the paper topic Paper tends to be from the perspective of one discipline. | Problem or topic is weakly defined. Shows a limited understanding of the paper topic. Interdisciplinary nature of the paper is weakly developed. |
Organization Score: | Clearly articulated thesis statement. Strong use of topic and concluding sentences to guide the reader. Topic and concluding sentences reinforce the thesis statement. Paragraphs are arranged for maximum effectiveness. Within the paragraphs, points logically flow from one to the next. Conclusion clearly sums up ideas presented in the essay.
| Good thesis but could be articulated more clearly. Good use of topic and concluding sentences to guide the reader, but they don’t directly reinforce the thesis. Paragraphs are arranged well. Within the paragraphs, points logically flow from one to the next. Conclusion sums up ideas. | Weakly articulated thesis statement. Poor use of topic and concluding sentences to guide the reader. Paragraphs are weakly developed. Within the paragraphs, points jump from one to the next. Conclusion leaves the reader wondering. | Poorly articulated thesis statement or no thesis statement. Weak use of topic and concluding sentences to guide the reader. Paragraphs are poorly developed. Within the paragraphs, points are scattered. No clear conclusion. |
Analysis Score: | Effective use of citations to support opinion. Close and careful analysis of material presented. Analysis is strongly situated within the context. | Good use of citations to support opinion. Careful analysis of material presented. Analysis is situated well within the context. | Weak use of citations to support opinion. Too many quotations that are not supported. Weak analysis of material presented. Analysis is poorly situated within the context. | Little use of citations to support opinion. Quotations are not supported. Poor analysis of material presented. Analysis is not situated within the context. |
Mechanics Score: | There is evidence of a superior command of vocabulary, spelling, grammar, usage, and mechanics Citations are incorporated effectively into the structure of the argument and strengthen the points being made. | There is evidence of a good command of vocabulary, spelling, grammar, usage, and mechanics Citations are incorporated appropriately into the analysis and support the points being made. | There is evidence of a weak command of vocabulary, spelling, grammar, usage, and mechanics Citations are incorporated weakly into the analysis or are awkwardly inserted with little explanation of their significance. | There is evidence of a poor command of vocabulary, spelling, grammar, usage, and mechanics Citations are incorporated weakly into the analysis. |
Style Score: | There is a variety of sentence patterns Word choices are specific and enhance the understanding of the opinion articulated It is an engaging read. | There is a some variety of sentence patterns Word choices are good and enhance the understanding of the opinion articulated. It is a good read. | There is a little variety of sentence patterns Word choices are weak and don’t always enhance the understanding of the opinion articulated.
| There is a very little variety of sentence patterns Word choices are poor. |
Publication Frequency
Western Tributaries is published annually.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Sponsors
Journal History
Western Tributaries is an annual refereed journal intended to showcase graduate student research, writing, and creative work presented at the annual Graduate Liberal Studies (GLS) Joint Symposium. This open access, refereed journal, started in 2014, is an outgrowth of the annual GLS Symposium started in 2007 by Stanford University and Dominican University as a way to bring together graduate students in Liberal Studies, along with alumni and staff for a weekend of social and intellectual interaction. Since its inception, the GLS Symposium has grown to include other west coast institutions as well as Maastricht University in the Netherlands. Western Tributaries is generously hosted online by Simon Fraser University. The journal is not proprietary such that students are welcome and encouraged to submit papers to other journals, including AGLSP's Confluence, and we hope they do.
