Editorial Process & Content Workflow
Demystify content creation workflow, editorial calendar, and quality assurance steps.
How content comes together
From pitch to publication
Every piece of content published on Cairo Board Review follows a structured, repeatable workflow designed to ensure quality, accuracy, and editorial consistency. Our process balances creative freedom with rigorous standards, allowing contributors to explore topics deeply while maintaining the platform's voice and credibility.
From the moment an idea is pitched to the day it goes live—and beyond—each article passes through multiple hands and checkpoints. This transparency document walks you through every stage, revealing the care and deliberation behind our board game criticism.
Planning
Editorial calendar and topic selection
Research
Playtesting and data collection
Writing
Drafting and peer review
Editing
Fact-checking and style polish
Publication
Scheduling and promotion
Planning & pitching
Our editorial calendar is planned quarterly, with flexibility for timely coverage of new releases and industry events. Topic selection balances several priorities: reader interest, editorial gaps, seasonal relevance, and the personal expertise of our contributors.
How we choose what to cover
- Reader requests and frequently asked questions
- New releases with significant buzz or innovation
- Evergreen classics that deserve fresh analysis
- Underrepresented genres or mechanics in our archive
- Comparative pieces addressing common purchase dilemmas
Contributors may pitch ideas at any time via our internal editorial board. Pitches include a proposed angle, target word count, required playtesting sessions, and estimated timeline. The editorial team evaluates each pitch for fit, feasibility, and alignment with our coverage scope.
Editorial independence: We do not accept payment or incentives for coverage. Publishers may send review copies, but inclusion in our calendar is never guaranteed and all coverage remains editorially independent.
Research & playtesting phase
Once a topic is approved, the real work begins. For reviews and strategy guides, this means extensive playtesting under varied conditions. Our standards require a minimum number of sessions before drafting begins, ensuring the writer has experienced the game across different player counts, skill levels, and group dynamics.
Game acquisition
We acquire games through a mix of publisher review copies, personal purchases, and loans from the Cairo gaming community. All review copies are disclosed in the published article. Games purchased by contributors or the platform remain property of Cairo Board Review's reference library.
Session logging
- Minimum three sessions for shorter games, five for complex strategy titles
- Varied player counts (solo, minimum, maximum, and optimal configurations)
- Mix of experienced and new players to assess teachability
- Detailed notes on rules questions, downtime, decision points, and player reactions
Note compilation
After each session, the reviewer logs observations in a structured template covering mechanics, theme integration, pacing, component quality, and overall experience. These notes form the foundation of the written review and ensure consistency across our scoring dimensions.
Comparative context: Reviewers are encouraged to reference similar games in their notes, building a mental map of how the title fits within its genre and weight class.
Writing & editing
Drafting process
With playtesting complete and notes compiled, the writer produces a first draft. We encourage contributors to write freely in this stage, prioritizing clarity and personal voice over rigid structure. Drafts typically run longer than the final published piece, allowing room for editorial refinement.
First drafts are submitted to the editorial team via our shared workspace, where they enter a collaborative review cycle.
Peer review
Every article is read by at least two editors before publication. The first pass focuses on structure, argument, and completeness—does the piece deliver on its promise? The second pass addresses style, tone, and consistency with our editorial voice.
- Structural edit: logic flow, section balance, supporting evidence
- Line edit: sentence clarity, word choice, readability
- Fact-checking: rules accuracy, publisher details, release dates
- Style consistency: adherence to our house style guide
Fact-checking protocol
All factual claims—player counts, playtime, designer names, publication years, mechanism definitions—are verified against primary sources: rulebooks, publisher websites, and BoardGameGeek. If a fact cannot be confirmed, it is removed or qualified.
Collaborative refinement: Editing is a dialogue. Writers receive detailed feedback and are invited to discuss suggested changes, ensuring the final piece reflects both editorial standards and the contributor's expertise.
Publication & updates
Once editing is complete and the writer has approved final changes, the article enters our publication queue. We maintain a consistent publishing schedule to build reader habits and ensure steady content flow.
Publishing schedule
- New reviews: Tuesdays and Fridays
- Strategy guides: Wednesdays
- Beginner content and comparisons: Thursdays
- Special features and interviews: Mondays
Articles are published in the morning (Cairo time) to maximize visibility across time zones. Each piece is accompanied by social media announcements and inclusion in our weekly newsletter digest.
Post-launch corrections
We monitor reader feedback and errata reports closely. If a factual error is identified after publication, we correct it promptly and add a note at the bottom of the article documenting the change and date. Substantive updates—such as revised opinions after expansions or new editions—are handled through dedicated update articles or appended sections.
Archiving and evergreen maintenance
Older articles remain accessible indefinitely. For evergreen content (beginner guides, core strategy concepts), we revisit and refresh articles annually to ensure continued relevance. Outdated reviews of games with major new editions receive update notes directing readers to newer coverage.
Reader engagement
Published articles are the beginning of a conversation, not the end. We actively read and respond to reader comments, questions, and critiques. Thoughtful feedback often inspires follow-up articles or additions to our editorial calendar.
Our commitment to transparency extends beyond this document—if you have questions about our process or suggestions for improvement, we welcome your input.
