Application for Facilitated Peer Review Support for Alternative Scholarly Works


Material Information

Application for Facilitated Peer Review Support for Alternative Scholarly Works
Abbreviated Title:
Facilitated Peer Review Committee Documents from August 2013
Physical Description:
Facilitated Peer Review Committee
Acord, Sophia
Dorsey, Alan
Jefferson, Rebecca
Simpson, Betsy
Taylor, Laurie N.
Telg, Ricky
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publication Date:


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:

Full Text


Page 1 of 6 Application for Facilitated Peer Review Support for Alternative Scholarly Work s Important Notes : The facilitated peer review process utilizes traditional peer review with expert reviewers. Because this process needs to support individual authors as well as the needs of departments, colleges, and institutions, reviews from the facilitated pee r review process will be shared with the author (s). With author and reviewer participants in the process identified, peer reviewers are actively contributing to scholarly communication and discourse through their participation in this process. We intend for this process to be for substantively complete works. Alternative scholarly works can be unusually difficult to alter. The common option s of may not be appropriate Peer reviewers for the facilitated peer review process are asked to evaluate the Work in terms of the equivalency provided on this application. The equivalencies are those listed as an existing peer reviewed category in the traditional T&P process at the University of Florida (e.g.; journal article, book chapter, edited collection, book, etc.) 1 Peer reviewers review the Work and select one of the following options: Eq uivalency is appropriate a s 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. Equivalenc y is not appropriate as recommended by the author (s). The Work is not at a level that would merit an equivalency. The Peer Review Form for Alternative Scholarly Works provides additional information as an aid to reviewers. This information may also be inf ormative for completing the following application. 1 The University of Florida Promotion and Tenure (P&T or T&P) guidelines and information are online:


Page 2 of 6 1. Core Information Title/Name of W ork: Name of author (s) requesting facilitated peer review, and contribution to the W ork: Contact email address(es) for autho r (s), or alternate contact information: Please provide inform ation on how to access the Work. URL for the Work: If not online, mode/means of access: Name of additional contributor(s) who should be recognized for contributing to the Work, and role for the Work: 2 2 Alternative scholarly works are often produced by authors working with others. For example, information technology profession als and graduate students are frequent contributors to digital humanities scholarly works. In some cases, they may be collaborators who should be recognized as one of the authors In other cases, they may have contributed to some degree but should not be r ecognized as one of the authors for the work. Including contributors and their roles is needed to ensure full and appropriate attribution for work; to support further refinement of the facilitated peer review process; and to provide feedback to the releva nt institutional entities regarding the importance of the contributors for producing the work.


Page 3 of 6 2. Information on the Work Please provide a short summary (approx. 200 500 words) of the Work in terms of goals, current status, and how it constitutes an impact or contribution to the field. Please explain if the Work is a contribution to multiple fields and/or public scholarship. How is the Work preserved or assured to be maintained and accessible over the long term ? For instance, a library may commit to supporting and preserving the W ork. How is the Work accessible? Please describe other review processes already in place for the Work For instance, please include information regarding competitive funding awarded for the Work; conference presentations on the Work; reports and papers about the Work (published formally, integrated support documents, etc.); reviews of the Work that have already been cond ucted; assessments of the Work; expert consu ltations and opinion s ; impact and integration measures (e.g.; usage statistics for an online site; evidence of an active core user community with partnerships and other similar arrangements); and the like.


Page 4 of 6 For Works that are technical or technologically dependent please provide a short description of the Work Please note: this may be a description of the abstracted, logical technical elements and not necessarily the technologies in particular. If appropriate, please include contact information for a technical contact or representative for the Work. Please provide a brief explanation on the status of the Work in terms of the life cycle of the Work. Does the Work represent the completion of a project? Does it represent a milestone in an ongoing cycle of development for a long term program? What is the significant date range for the Work and how is it relevant? For instance, reference books are often created to cover a certain topic or period. Depending on their focus, a standard reference book may be reviewed and updated every five years. Similar activities may occur for data collection conducted for longitudinal studies. Please note any comparative genres or forms that could be informative for understanding this information for the Work.


Page 5 of 6 3. Peer Review and Peer Reviewers Please provide a reco mmendation for the level or equivalency at which the Work Refereed Work that represents an equivalent impact in the field with the norm for a journal article or similar form The equi valency could take any form sole author book edited book, contributor of a chapter to a book refereed proceedings, refereed journal articl es etc. recognized as currency in the field. While equivalencies are imperfect, equivalencies may aid authors and institutions for the evaluation and proper crediting for alternative scholar ly works As such, a way to represent the Work within existing categories commonly included in tenure and promotion documents and CVs is needed. Authors in different fi elds may contribute in the same manner to a Work where the equivalency for each author because of the field or discipline, is different. Please explain how the equivalency relates to the discipline for the author (s). Please note: equivalencies should be based on impact Other measures, like hours of labor and costs should not be considered unless they are factors for impact Please provide names of at least two potential reviewers in the field; institutional affiliations; if applicable, affiliation or relationship of these reviewers to the Work; and brief bios/summaries of their expertise for reviewing the W ork.


Page 6 of 6 4. Agreement and Submission All authors for the Work, as listed in Section 1, are required to sign the completed form before the review can begin. Submission of the completed application is the first formal step in the facilitated peer review p rocess. ________________________________ Signature of Author Requesting Review ________________________________ Printed or Typed Name of Author _______________ Date of Signature ________________________________ Signature of Author Requesting Review ________________________________ Printed or Typed Name of Author _______________ Date of Signature ___________________________ _____ Signature of Author Requesting Review ________________________________ Printed or Typed Name of Author _______________ Date of Signature ________________________________ Signature of Author Requesting Review ________________________________ Printed or Typed Name of Author _______________ Date of Signature ________________________________ Signature of Author Requesting Review __________ ______________________ Printed or Typed Name of Author _______________ Date of Signature ________________________________ Signature of Author Requesting Review ________________________________ Printed or Typed Name of Author _______________ Date of Signature Please designate a single corresponding author, if appropriate. If appropriate, p lease note contact information for any additional individual(s) to be included on correspondence with the author (s). This may include: department chair(s), mentor(s), and the like.