Peer Review Form for Peer Reviewers for Alternative Scholarly Works


Material Information

Peer Review Form for Peer Reviewers 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 2 Peer Review Form for Alternative Scholarly Works Please complete this form and return it by email to Dr. Laurie Taylor UF Digital Humanities Librarian : Note: All information from this form will be shared with the author ( s ) whose work is being reviewed. Please ensure all comments are frank constructive and relevant for the evaluation and validation processes. 1. Please choose one of the following in relation to the equivalency that represents 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.) as indicated in the attached Application for Facilitated Peer Review Support for Alternative Scholarly Works. __ Equivalency is appropriate as recommended by the author (s) as INSERTED BY COMMITTEE FROM AUTHOR APPLICATION Comments: __ Equivalency is not app ropriate as recommended by the author (s). However, the Work is a significant scholarly contribution, and the reviewer recommends the equivalency as______________________ Comments: __ Equivalency is not appropriate as recommended by the author (s). The Work is not at a level that would merit an equivalency. Comments: 2. Please indicate your judgment as to the quality of this work : Rankings have been attached to the following criteria as an aid to you. You may use this system or modify it as you see fit to assist in the final evaluation. Please rate the Work in the following areas: Excellent Good Adequate Inadequate Unacceptable Level of Context Sufficiency of background information provided Appropriateness of citations to prior work Methods/Process (if applicable) Clear description of process or methods to create the Work Quality of the data collection Impact Placement of the Work within the field, multiple fields, and/or within public scholarship Level and importance of contribution and impact for the field 1 Demonstration of new insights about the issue or problem Significant contribution to the understanding of the topic 1 Because the facilitated peer review process cannot have a journal impact factor or other measures, the peer reviewer assessment of the level and importance of the Work is critical.


Page 2 of 2 Presentation of the Work Clarity and professionalism of written material Clarity and professionalism of visual and other material Appropriateness of language, terminology, and tone for the intended audience Usability Archival integrity (e.g., the work is located in an appropriate venue, is intuitive to locate, and has a stable presence) Overall Evaluation 3. Please provide comments for the author (s) and Facilitated Peer Review Committee Members: 2 Please provide a thoughtful rev iew and commentary, including any suggestions for improving the work : Overall assessment including whether the project accomplished the stated goals or intent its contribution to one or more disciplinary audiences, and c omments in general to its scholarly/intellectual value Comments on the appearance usability, and location of the Work (if applicable) Suggestions for future phases, possible further implications, and/or opportunities to leverage or maximize impact from the work 4 If you have any relation to the work being reviewed please note that relation 2 Reviewers should recognize that constraints may prevent the author (s) from implementing reviewer suggestions.