Civic X Syllabus Submission Criteria

Purpose

The purpose of the Civic X Syllabus submission criteria is twofold: (1) to which resources to include or exclude from the platform, and (2) to inform prospective submitters about the types and quality of contributions we seek.

Criteria Rubric

Criterion	Excellent Fit	Very Good Fit	Good Fit	Fair Fit	Unfit
Subject Alignment	Addresses the needs of three or more key audiences (e.g., civic professionals, policymakers, students), with clear, tailored content for each.	Addresses two key audiences fully and offers at least some relevant insights for others.	Primarily targets one key audience but provides clear relevance to one additional group.	Intended for a single audience; any crossover relevance is minimal or only implied.	Doesn’t clearly serve any of the defined key audiences or lacks practical applicability.
Timeliness and Timelessness	Published or updated within the last 2 years, OR contains enduring frameworks/insights that remain broadly applicable over time.	Published 2–3 years ago, with significant insights that still apply today.	Published 3–5 years ago and retains some useful points, though parts may feel dated.	Published over 5 years ago, but with a few timeless nuggets, major portions are outdated.	Entirely outdated (over 5 years old) with no enduring applicability, or overly tied to a past moment.
Legitimacy	From highly authoritative sources (peer-reviewed journals, government/research institutions) with full citations and transparent authorship.	From well-recognized sources (major industry bodies, respected think-tanks) with verifiable authorship and references.	From moderately credible outlets (professional blogs, smaller nonprofits) with clear provenance.	From questionable outlets (minimal sourcing, unknown authors), but it contains occasional verifiable facts.	From unreliable or anonymous sources with no verifiable data or citations.
Accessibility	Visually clean, intuitive layout, minimal jargon; supports multiple accessibility standards (e.g., alt-text, transcripts), with clear navigation and summaries.	Well-organized and generally easy to navigate; uses plain language; minor accessibility issues (e.g., occasional jargon, limited alt-text).	Clear structure and readable, but requires user effort (e.g., denser text blocks, limited navigation aids, some jargon).	Cluttered or inconsistent formatting; significant navigation or readability hurdles (e.g., no headings, heavy jargon).	Virtually inaccessible: disorganized, overwhelming jargon, no support for accessibility needs.
Openness	Fully open-access, no registration/payment required.	Freely accessible but may require simple (no-cost) registration.	Accessible upon paid registration, but offers a free trial/free tier; events with discounted/no cost of attendance for a specified group.	Requires payment to access (even if open to all registrants).	Completely paywalled or restricted to a closed group, with no free access/registration option.

Subject Alignment

Excellent Fit: Addresses the needs of three or more key audiences (e.g., civic professionals, policymakers, students), with clear, tailored content for each.
Very Good Fit: Addresses two key audiences fully and offers at least some relevant insights for others.
Good Fit: Primarily targets one key audience but provides clear relevance to one additional group.
Fair Fit: Intended for a single audience; any crossover relevance is minimal or only implied.
Unfit: Doesn’t clearly serve any of the defined key audiences or lacks practical applicability.

Timeliness and Timelessness

Excellent Fit: Published or updated within the last 2 years, OR contains enduring frameworks/insights that remain broadly applicable over time.
Very Good Fit: Published 2–3 years ago, with significant insights that still apply today.
Good Fit: Published 3–5 years ago and retains some useful points, though parts may feel dated.
Fair Fit: Published over 5 years ago, but with a few timeless nuggets, major portions are outdated.
Unfit: Entirely outdated (over 5 years old) with no enduring applicability, or overly tied to a past moment.

Legitimacy

Excellent Fit: From highly authoritative sources (peer-reviewed journals, government/research institutions) with full citations and transparent authorship.
Very Good Fit: From well-recognized sources (major industry bodies, respected think-tanks) with verifiable authorship and references.
Good Fit: From moderately credible outlets (professional blogs, smaller nonprofits) with clear provenance.
Fair Fit: From questionable outlets (minimal sourcing, unknown authors), but it contains occasional verifiable facts.
Unfit: From unreliable or anonymous sources with no verifiable data or citations.

Accessibility

Excellent Fit: Visually clean, intuitive layout, minimal jargon; supports multiple accessibility standards (e.g., alt-text, transcripts), with clear navigation and summaries.
Very Good Fit: Well-organized and generally easy to navigate; uses plain language; minor accessibility issues (e.g., occasional jargon, limited alt-text).
Good Fit: Clear structure and readable, but requires user effort (e.g., denser text blocks, limited navigation aids, some jargon).
Fair Fit: Cluttered or inconsistent formatting; significant navigation or readability hurdles (e.g., no headings, heavy jargon).
Unfit: Virtually inaccessible: disorganized, overwhelming jargon, no support for accessibility needs.

Openness

Excellent Fit: Fully open-access, no registration/payment required.
Very Good Fit: Freely accessible but may require simple (no-cost) registration.
Good Fit: Accessible upon paid registration, but offers a free trial/free tier; events with discounted/no cost of attendance for a specified group.
Fair Fit: Requires payment to access (even if open to all registrants).
Unfit: Completely paywalled or restricted to a closed group, with no free access/registration option.