When Leadership Falls Short: The Crisis of Care in Library Work
Posted on in Blog Posts
Why Murmurations: Peer Review and Trans and Gender Diverse Content
Posted on August 4, 2026 in Blog Posts
Full disclosure: This post is functionally a journal launch announcement. We are two of the editors of the brand-new journal Murmurations: A Trans and Gender Diverse Library Journal, and we want to spread the word about its existence.
But we don’t want to just tell people we made a journal. We want to use this post to explore why we found it necessary to do so—it is an enormous amount of labor, and there are specific issues in LIS publishing that we hope to counter. We can’t force other journals to be more supportive of trans and gender diverse authors or more capable of producing high-quality material on gender diversity in library work, but we can create a space with those priorities and share some recommendations.
Anyone who has published on trans and gender diverse topics in libraries is likely excruciatingly aware of how useless the peer review process can be for this type of content. Not always, certainly, but very often these works are reviewed by editors and reviewers with minimal knowledge about gender diversity. After close to a decade of publishing on this topic jointly and individually, we now can recognize the more common types of “feedback”:
- “Wow, I didn’t know that!” — While we are intimately familiar with the widespread ignorance about gender diversity, we do not find it useful to be assigned reviewers who lack knowledge of the topic.
- “Here are all the ways in which I, personally, am an ally.” — Perhaps so, but that is not feedback on an article draft. A peculiarly common incarnation is when strangers tell us unprompted about trans and gender diverse people in their personal lives. We don’t need to know that you have a trans nephew, and outing trans people makes you come across as unsafe to be out to.
- “I am unaware that I lack even the most basic knowledge about gender diversity.” — Unlike the first point, this type of reviewer does not say as much directly. Instead, it comes through clearly in comments that range from ignorant to bewildering to actively offensive. This reviewer type will confidently propose solutions and suggest revisions that will make the work worse because they do not realize they do not understand what is being discussed.
- “I don’t think there is a need to focus on this topic.” — This one may or may not be said outright. This type of reviewer might deny that an identified problem exists at all or suggest the article address a different issue they believe is more important or necessary. Sometimes, this type of reviewer will falsely claim that the problem has already been discussed extensively in the literature or push back on the only source the author could find without suggesting any alternatives. These arguments may come from ignorance, transantagonistic beliefs, and/or a misplaced sense of confidence.
- “You need to include more information about gender identity in this piece.” — While, as established, we are well aware that most readers will lack basic knowledge about trans and gender diverse people, there are plenty of resources for Trans 101–level content, and we cannot move on to deeper issues if we are expected to repeat it in every article. This type of comment is especially frustrating when the piece already points to resources where readers can learn more.
The problem with these useless (at best) comments is not merely that they are irritating or upsetting to receive. When done properly, the peer review process is an instrumental step in creating high-quality work. Comments about how transantagonism is wrong or random anecdotes about how a reviewer supports their trans students do not help us improve the piece; challenges to the validity of the topic certainly do not, especially when a reviewer misuses even the most basic terminology. Knowing how rarely journal editors bother to find a reviewer with actual expertise on gender identity means we need to seek out our own trusted readers if we want useful feedback, which adds an extra stage to the writing process. Even after that, we must still wade through the types of comments listed above, which sometimes involves explaining to editors why the comments are wrong or inappropriate.
A primary goal of Murmurations is to provide a place where pieces on trans and gender diverse topics in libraries can receive knowledgeable feedback. Another goal is to build gender inclusion into every step of the publishing process, which is another topic entirely. But we also hope that other journals can at least begin to consider these issues, so we will close with a plea:
If you are an editor, recognize that knowledge of gender diversity is an area of expertise in its own right and seek out reviewers accordingly. Do not assume knowledge or lack thereof based on your assumptions about someone’s gender identity. Instead, look at what they have published and presented, or what they have named as a subject they are qualified to review, just as you would for any other topic. If there is nobody with that kind of expertise in your reviewer pool, reach out to people who might be available to review that piece. We have been asked to review submissions about trans and gender diverse people by journals before—this is a perfectly normal solution when you need specialized knowledge.
And if you are a reviewer who is asked to provide feedback on a topic you don’t know about—this or anything else—say “no”! It is neither helpful nor particularly ethical to agree to act as an expert on a topic that you are not qualified to cover. Even better, suggest to the editors that they seek out more qualified reviewers; you can’t force them to do that, but you can at least remind them of the option.
Unfortunately, the two of us probably shouldn’t publish in our own journal too frequently and thus must continue to endure the frustrations above. But for everyone who is not on the editorial board of Murmurations, the journal is accepting submissions! We also have an open call to join the reviewer pool, where we ask for people to identify their areas of expertise and will select reviewers accordingly.
About the authors:
Stephen G. Krueger is an academic librarian in the United States. Ey is the author of Supporting Trans People in Libraries (2019) and co-editor of Trans and Gender Diverse Voices in Libraries (2023). Learn more at www.stephengkrueger.com.
Keahi Adolpho is a processing archivist at Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. They are a co-editor of Trans and Gender Diverse Voices in Libraries (2023), a member of the Homosaurus Collective, and a co-author of Best Practices for Queer Metadata. His research interests are mainly centered around trans and gender diverse inclusion in libraries and reparative and inclusive metadata.
Interested in contributing to TIE?
Email Fatima (fmohie-eldin@ala.org) at Choice with your topic idea.
Header image is a detail of This is Harlem by Jacob Lawrence. Courtesy of Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. © 2021 The Jacob and Gwendolyn Knight Lawrence Foundation, Seattle / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. For more information, click here.