Peer Review

Peer Review is the process in which subject experts read through content and provide critical feedback and suggestions to improve the resource for its intended audience. It can take place at many stages in the publishing process. When we speak about peer review, we are typically talking about review that takes place before a book or article is published or officially released. However, peer review can also take place after the book is released – called post-publication peer review.

Peer review is invaluable for ensuring the quality of educational content, and is integral to the production of open texts, just as it is for scholarly monographs and journals. Its presence signals that the work has passed through rigorous quality control and that the content is suitable for use in the classroom.

This is especially significant when working with OER, as the quality, comprehensiveness, clarity, and currency of open texts and OER is often called into question. OER, due to their low-cost nature and ease of creation/publication, is mistakenly perceived as low-quality. Peer review is important to dispel these notions and to encourage wider use and adoption of the book – which is ultimately the goal of most projects. Not only does it give a public indicator of quality to potential adopters, but it also provides you with a feeling of security that the content developed is in keeping with the expertise within the field. Peer review is fundamentally a means for you to receive valuable feedback on your text’s content and make it stronger. It’s a chance for you to share your book with subject experts and ensure that the content is appropriate, accurate, and adequately covers the material.

Traditional Peer Review Process

For a very long time, publishers favored private, anonymous (‘blinded’) peer review, under the assumption that it would reduce bias and that authors would prefer for criticisms of their work to remain private.

1. Researchers start with an idea, theory, and/or hypothesis
2. Researchers conduct a study or do research in some way and write up their findings
3. Researchers/authors submit a proposed article to a journal editor
4. The journal editor decides if the article fits with the journal’s mission- if yes, it gets sent to 3-5 other experts/researchers in the field (called “reviewers”)
5. The editor reviews feedback from the reviewers and decides to accept, revise, or reject the article.
6. Usually the authors are sent the feedback and revision suggestions unless it is rejected after peer review

Open Peer Review

Open Peer Review was borne of the idea that by making author and reviewer identities public, more civil and constructive peer reviews will be submitted, and peer reviews can be put into context. In recent years, scientists have increasingly called for an Open alternative to traditional peer review. This has manifested in journals adopting Open Peer Review (OPR). Definitions of open peer review vary, but many researchers agree the process makes peer reviewers’ identities public (Ford, 2013).

Ford (2013) describes the different characteristics of open peer review:

Open Textbook Reviewing Models

Peer reviewers strengthen the validity, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the text. — Karen Bjork, Head of Digital Initiatives, Portland State University

The quality and accuracy of an open textbook can be addressed in a variety of ways. Here are some peer review models that are currently used:

By Author Invitation: Authors invite and coordinate peers to review their work before publication. This review can be private or public, for example in the form of letters that are published with the text. There may be modest funding to pay reviewers for their time.

Via Publisher: Project managers send the textbook, or portions of the textbook, to reviewers. There may be modest funding to pay reviewers for their time. Common turn-around times range from 2 weeks to one month. The process may be blind or open.

Student Tested: Some faculty test their textbook in the classroom and incorporate student feedback. This method means that authors can hear directly from their key audience about what’s working and what isn’t.

Open Textbook Library: Faculty who teach at Open Textbook Network member institutions are invited to review published textbooks using a rubric. The reviews are public and unedited.

Subject Matter Experts

Inviting a colleague to contribute by writing a section or chapter to your textbook on a subject for which they are the expert is one way to ensure quality information in your open textbook. Another is to ask colleagues to serve as subject-matter experts (SME) and conduct a peer review — literally a review by a peer — of your work before it goes to copy editing.

Like other textbook tasks, providing your SME with clear expectations will make this phase of the writing project smoother. It will also save your SME time and you frustration. Here are some suggestions.

• Only give the SME text that needs their input, not the whole textbook (unless it helps with the assessment).
• Identify the course level and subject matter for which the textbook is intended.
• Use a rubric that informs the SME about required feedback. (See the BCcampus Open Education Review Rubric posted below for ideas.)
• Clarify that you are seeking the SME’s expertise on the content, but do not need help with grammar, spelling, layout, or other aspects of the textbook.
• Give the SME adequate time to conduct the review and set a deadline.

Peer Reviewing OER @ UNM and Beyond