Peer Review Process

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 your book 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 authors 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.

The quality and accuracy of an open textbook can be addressed in a variety of ways. Here are some 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.

(SME) feedback.  Developing questions to guide the SME will be useful in both getting feedback that is specific to your needs and saving the time of your peer reviewers.

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 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.
• 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.

Hypothesis.is is a tool that allows users to openly analyze and annotate digital texts across the web, including web pages, pdfs, and documents loaded to the cloud. For peer review, Hypothesis.is can offer an opportunity to open up the peer review process by allowing readers to add observations, questions and suggestions to text selections. Additionally, Hypothes.is is integrated into Pressbooks, allowing for a seamless experience for reviewers. Learn more about Pressbooks and Hypothes.is in the BCcampus Publising with Pressbooks: A Visual Guide.

University of Regina Peer Review Process

There are three separate grants funded through the OER Publishing Program: small supplementary grant, small adaptation grant and the large grant. All large grant projects must undergo a peer review process before the completed resource can be released to the public. The purpose of the large grant is to fund:

• a major adaptation (up to 50% new content) of an existing OER
• creation of a new OER

The large grant is larger in scope with a timeline of two years (maximum of 3 years). It requires a significantly larger budget to complete the work set out in the project timeline. At the end of the development, a peer review of the entire project must be completed to ensure the quality of the product. Project authors should contact the OER Program Manager two to three weeks prior to the end of project development. This will give the OER Program Manager sufficient lead time to contact potential reviewers.

Single-blind Peer Review

The University of Regina OER Publishing Program requires that all large project grants undergo a single-blind peer review process. The OER Program Manager is responsible for contacting 2 – 3 potential reviewers after the submission of the open content draft. Project authors should contact the OER Program Manager two to three weeks prior to the end of development. This will give the OER Program Manager sufficient lead time to contact potential reviewers.

Once selected, these reviewers will be provided with 6 weeks to complete the review and return a report for project authors. Then it will be the responsibility of the project authors to incorporate reviewer comments into the resource before it is released publicly. It may be advisable to have a copy editor review the revised project before releasing it to the public. Note that for resources developed in Pressbooks, the project must remain in private mode until this public release.

Attribution

UBC Open Text Publishing Guide by Erin Fields; Amanda Grey; Donna Langille; and Clair Swanson. This resource is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Authoring Open Textbooks by  Open Education Network. This resource is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.