Peer Review Guide for Peer Reviewers and Submitting Authors

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Peer Review Guide for Peer Reviewers and Submitting Authors
Abbreviated Title:
Facilitated Peer Review Committee Documents from August 2013
Physical Description:
Documentation
Language:
English
Creator:
Facilitated Peer Review Committee
Acord, Sophia
Dorsey, Alan
Jefferson, Rebecca
Simpson, Betsy
Taylor, Laurie N.
Telg, Ricky
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publication Date:

Notes

Abstract:
Committee, description of responsibilities from the charge: The Facilitated Peer Review Committee has been established with the approval of the Dean of the Libraries to support the peer review process for innovative and/or nontraditional forms of scholarship and scholarly work, which is particularly needed for new works of digital scholarship. The need for this process arose with a digital scholarship project created by two faculty members in the Libraries, and this project will serve as the pilot project for the Committee. The Committee will establish the requirements for the facilitated peer review process – with the committee acting akin to an editorial board that would facilitate, but not conduct, peer review – specifically for innovative forms of scholarship. This process is critically needed across many fields to support scholarly efforts in multimedia publication, data curation, publicly-engaged scholarship, collaborative work, and other forms of alternative scholarly products that do not fit within established disciplinary traditions. The Committee will establish the norms, standards, and documentation for the facilitated peer review process. The Committee will refine these materials and apply them to the approved digital scholarship project which will serve as a pilot project. The Committee will document the application of the process to the pilot project for peer review of that project and for that project to serve as a model for facilitated peer review for other scholarly works as well as being a model for possible application within other Colleges after the process is established for the pilot within the Libraries. At this time, establishing the process with the facilitating committee, working through the full pilot project, and documenting the entire process is expected to require up to 5 hours per month for each committee member, primarily for reviewing and refining draft documentation on this process.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:

The author dedicated the work to the Commons by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law and all related or neighboring legal rights he or she had in the work, to the extent allowable by law.
System ID:
AA00016553:00002

Full Text

PAGE 1

Page 1 of 4 Peer Review Guide for Peer Reviewers and Submitting Authors The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries are establishing a facilitated peer review process to support the peer review of alternative scholarly works specifically in relation to the tenure and promotion process. 1 Such a process is critically needed across many fields to support scholarly efforts in multimedia publication, data curation, publicly engaged scholarship, collaborative work s and other forms of alternative scholarly pro ducts that do not fit within established disciplinary traditions. The process will support and uphold the sacredness of peer review as a process for fair evaluation that respects diversities 2 and has been established with the needs of individual author s and institutional units in mind in terms of measurement, communicability, and reporting. This process mirror s traditional peer review (following models of peer review for publications and tenure and promotion and grant awards ) as closely as possible with all materials peer reviewed in accordance with already established standards of excellence. Peer Review Process The steps/stages for the facilitated peer review process are : Author ( s ) submit s completed Application to C ommittee Committee reviews Application for completeness; communicating with author (s) as needed to obtain complete information Committee informs author (s) after the Application has been accepted as complete Committee confirms selection of at least two p eer r eviewers, with no less than 50% from the list provided by the author (s) Committee c hair creates projected timeline for review process Committee c hair contacts potential p eer r eviewers, supporting any discussion/questions Committee c hair contacts author (s) with the status of the review process and to share the projected timeline, and to support any discussion/questions Committee c hair maintains schedule for the process Peer r eviewers conduct peer review Peer r eviewers s ubmit completed reviews to the C ommit tee c hair consulting the Committee as needed Possible discussion and clarification at this stage 1 The University of Florida Promotion and Tenure (P&T or T&P) guidelines and information are online: http://www.aa.ufl.edu/tenure 2 See Michle Lamont, How Professors Think ( Harvard University Press: 2009), for a discussion of peer review as a standardized and ritualized process wherein peer review becomes and is sacred.

PAGE 2

Page 2 of 4 Committee chair reviews p eer r eviewer submissions for completeness consulting the Committee as needed Possible discussion and clarification at this stage Committee may select a third peer reviewer if needed, handled on a case by case basis Committee c hair in consultation with the Committee drafts a summary letter synthesizing the narrative reviews from the p eer r eviewers Committee c hair prepare s compilation of the draft summary letter, reviews, application, and any other documentation and provid es this compiled packet to the C ommittee Committee reviews, makes any changes, conducts final work if necessary, and grants final approval of the summary review letter with full review packet Committee c hair submits letter and review packet to author (s) Committee chair sends letters acknowledging the p eer r eviewers for their service Committee contacts author (s) and p eer r eviewers to request feedback to assess and improve the facilitated peer review process Roles and Responsibilities for the Peer Review Process Author (s) The facilitated peer review process begins with the author (s) completing the Application for Facilitated Peer Review Support for Alternative Scholarly Works. Author s provide contextual and background information as well as documentation to support the review of their alternative scholarly works. By completing the Application, author s provide succ inct information and context for alternative scholarly works. Facilitated Peer Review Committee The Facilitated Peer Review Committee is comprised of UF faculty and staff T role is to facilitate the process of peer review. The Committee is akin to members of a journal editorial board staff editors in providing the framework for peer review or the program officers for a granting a gency that supports and facilitates the experts who are conducting peer review The Committe e establishes the necessary policies, procedures, and documentation; locates the appropriate experts to conduct peer review; and supports the process of peer review as performed by experts. Peer review is conducted by experts in the field Additional role s expected of the Committee include: Full Committee o R eviews templates and processes no less than annually; makes appropriate updates and changes

PAGE 3

Page 3 of 4 Committee Chair o Schedules meetings, takes minutes, and distributes and maintains documentation regarding the pr ocess Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers are crucial contributors to the facilitated peer review process. By reviewing materials and providing thorough, informed and expert written reviews, peer reviewers ensure that scholarly works endorsed through the peer review process represent substantive i mpact or contribution to the field and that those works can be recognized and credited properly. This provides the necessary supports for individual author s, institutions and institutional un its, and more broadly, scholarly communications in terms of inquiry, excellence, and innovation. Peer reviewers also provide feedback to aid author s in improving and extendin g their work for maximum impact for the field. Identification of and Attribution for Author s, Committee, and Peer Reviewers Given that in many forms of alternative scholarship, as with online scholarly works, author s are identified, this process differs from the traditional peer review process in this one area where ins titutional facilitators, author (s), and reviewers are not anonymous. The facilit ated peer review process will follow the process used for tenure and promotion letters wherein the identities of institutional facilitators, author and reviewers are disclosed and author s may retain rights to review all feedback. Because this process needs to support individual author s as well as the needs of departments, colleges, a nd institutions reviews from the facilitated peer review process will be shared with the author (s) With both author (s) and reviewer s identified, peer reviewers are able to actively contribute to scholarly communication and discourse thr ough their participation in the process. Peer Review Form for Alternative Scholarly Work s The Peer Review Form for Alternative Scholarly Works contains contextual notes to support the feedback requested from peer reviews. not be appropriate. Peer reviewers for the facilitated peer review process are asked to evaluate the Work in terms of the equivalency provided on the application. The equivalencies are those listed as an existing peer reviewed category in the

PAGE 4

Page 4 of 4 traditional T &P process at the University of Florida (e.g.; journal article, book chapter, edited collection, book, etc.). 3 Peer reviewers review the Work and select one of the following options: Equivalency is appropriate as recommended by the author (s) Equivalency is not appropriate as recommended by the author (s). However, the Work is a significant scholarly contribution, and the reviewer recommends the equivalency as another category listed in the T&P process. Equivalency is not appropriate as recommended by the a uthor (s). The Work is not at a level that would merit an equivalency. The Peer Review Form for Alternative Scholarly Works provides additional information to aid reviewers which may also be informative for author s submitting W ork for review Additional Information Additional information on the peer review process, roles, and responsibilities is given in the Application for Facilitated Peer Review Support for Alternative Scholarly Works and the Peer Review Form for Alternative Scholarly Works. All materia ls are located on the Committee Website: http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/committees/fprc/ 3 The University of Florida Promotion and Tenure (P&T or T&P) guidelines and information are online: http://www.aa.ufl.edu/tenure