1 / 16

Assuring Quality Resources – The Peer Review Process

Assuring Quality Resources – The Peer Review Process. BioSciEd Net New Partners Meeting Melinda E. Lowy Higher Education Programs Coordinator Education Office The American Physiological Society. Peer Review of BEN Learning Objects.

oya
Télécharger la présentation

Assuring Quality Resources – The Peer Review Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assuring Quality Resources – The Peer Review Process BioSciEd Net New Partners Meeting Melinda E. Lowy Higher Education Programs Coordinator Education Office The American Physiological Society

  2. Peer Review of BEN Learning Objects • BEN Founding Partner Societies committed to providing only quality teaching resources • Each BEN Partner is responsible for developing and initiating peer review of its Learning Objects • Learning Objects are not uploaded for searching on BEN until accepted by Partner

  3. What Constitutes Peer Review? • Each Partner defines “peer review” in its own terms • Develops review criteria • Can vary depending on type of resource • Develops review process • Sets review schedule • Selects reviewers • Trains reviewers in use of criteria • Posts review process on their site

  4. Developing Peer Review Procedures/Process Example using APS Archive of Teaching Resources

  5. APS Review Criteria Types of learning objects • Graphics, PowerPoints, lesson plans, case studies, lectures, tests, simulations, etc. • Web sites (personal, institutional) • Peer-reviewed education journal articles • Pedagogy material (reports, “how-to’s”, tools, ect.) • APS-developed materials

  6. Review Criteria • Graphics, PowerPoints, lesson plans, case studies, lectures, tests, simulations, etc. • Scientific accuracy only • Appropriate use of animals/humans • Quality or appropriateness handled through bulletin boards attached to each object (colleague-to-colleague sharing)

  7. Review Criteria (cont’d) • Web sites (personal, institutional) • Overview of reviewer-selected pages at several levels within the web site • Scientific accuracy only • Appropriate use of animals and humans • Quality or appropriateness handled through bulletin boards attached to each object (colleague-to-colleague sharing)

  8. Review Criteria (cont’d) • Peer-reviewed journal articles • Review done according to Journal criteria and includes both content and pedagogy • Only articles that have passed peer review and have been accepted are catalogued for the Archive • In addition, comments are handled through bulletin boards attached to each object (colleague-to-colleague sharing)

  9. Review Criteria (cont’d) • Pedagogy material • Reviewed for content only • APS-developed materials • Reviewed for content and pedagogy

  10. APS Review Process • Two review dates per year with specific calls for Learning Objects in related fields. • An object is received and assigned to a review panel from that field. • The review panel is put together from interested members. Their contact info is put into the online system. • APS staff email reviewers with instructions on how to access the object and the review form on the APS Intranet.

  11. Review Process (cont’d) 5. During the 2-week review period, the review panel reviews all materials received in that field and submits their reviews via the Intranet. • APS staff combines the reviews and gets a decision on acceptance. 7. The anonymous reviews are sent to the author by APS staff. -if accepted, the object is released to the Archive -If accepted with revisions, the author is asked to revise the object according to the reviews -if not accepted, the author may revise the object according to the reviews or withdraw the object

  12. Review Process (cont’d) 8. If revision is necessary, the revised object and comments are re-sent to the review panel for final acceptance.

  13. Review Schedule Deadline dates for submissions: February 15 and September 15 Review panels convened: March 1 and October 1 (2 weeks to complete reviews) Reviews sent to authors: March 22 and October 22.

  14. Reviewer Training • Review panel • Web conference calls planned • Demonstrate review process step-by-step • Discussion of review criteria guides • Individual reviewers • PowerPoint demonstrating the review process step-by-step, including screen shots • Review criteria guides

  15. For Future Consideration • Reviewer ethics • Reviewer confidentiality

  16. Developing Your Peer Review Procedures/Process • Handout listing review procedures and criteria for various types of learning objects for various Partners • Discuss it with your Education Com. • Discuss it with your Council/Board • Staffing considerations • Initial setup: considerable time and effort • Afterwards: ~8 hours/month

More Related