Skip to Main Content

OER Publishing Style Guide

Peer review

Peer review is an important part of publishing an OER. Sometimes the quality of an OER can be questioned and by including a peer review component in the development of your resource this contributes to a quality product. There are different ways that an OER can be reviewed including:

  • Review by students either during development or when in use in teaching
  • Review by colleagues as part of a collaborative writing project or when used by colleagues during teaching
  • Review by external reviewers as part of a formalised process

Including a review statement with your resource can reassure users of it's quality and authority.

Qualities of a useful review

When deciding whether to action reviewers’ feedback, you’ll need to assess the usefulness of their reviews. A good review is:

  • Accurate – answers the questions asked
  • Comprehensive – contains complete replies to each question
  • Constructive – frames positive and negative feedback in a respectful and helpful manner, explains why feedback was offered and describes how the work can be improved
  • Concise – provides examples from the reviewed textbook that illustrate comment

Review by students

As one of the main purposes of developing an OER is for use in teaching and learning, it can be useful to have it reviewed by students prior to open release. This could be achieved by including the developed resource in the unit site or as a learning activity with current students, who can be asked to provide feedback. If the resource is large such as an open textbook, on Pressbooks these can be published with a link that students can access prior to adding these to the directory. In this way, the OER can be used with students and feedback can be obtained prior to publishing the text widely. Students can be great at identifying gaps in a texts as well as reinforcing the resources completeness in supporting their learning needs.


Review by colleagues

Having the OER reviewed by colleagues can also provide feedback ensuring a quality resource. This can be done in a number of ways including:

  • A colleague in your Faculty may be happy to review the OER as a critical friend
  • If the unit the resource is for has a number of teaching staff, the OER can be used in teaching by others and feedback obtained on the strengths and weaknesses of the OER
  • If there are multiple authors on the OER, each author can review another author's chapter

Formal peer review

During peer review, subject experts read through your OER and provide critical feedback and suggestions for improvement. Peer review ensures your content is accurate, adequately covers the material and is suitable for classroom use. Because open texts are low-cost and easy to produce, they are sometimes perceived as low-quality compared to commercial textbooks. Peer review allows you to dispel these notions by ensuring a high-quality product. Not only does peer review signal to potential adopters that your open text has passed through a rigorous quality control process, but reviewers often end up adopting texts they have reviewed themselves.

Peer review models for open textbooks

There are a number of different peer review models you can adopt for your open textbook:

  • By author invitation – Authors invite and coordinate peers to review their work before publication. This review can be private or public (for example, through review documents that are published alongside the textbook). Reviewers may be compensated for their time if funding is available.
  • Via publisher (e.g. library) – Project managers send the textbook or portions of the textbook to reviewers. Reviewers may be compensated for their time if funding is available. Common turnaround times range from two weeks to one month. The process may or may not be anonymous (blind).

Designing a peer review process

When designing your peer review process, you will need to consider:

  • Who will coordinate peer review – the author or project manager
  • The goals for the peer review process – what exactly are you asking prospective reviewers to do? What criteria should they focus on as part of the review?
  • When you will conduct peer review – chapter-by-chapter, once all the content has been written and edited (pre-publication – most common) or post-publication (less common)
  • Whether or not reviews will be anonymous
  • Your criteria for selecting reviewers (e.g. expertise, cultural background, etc.)
  • How to recruit reviewers (e.g. personal invitations, expressions of interest, etc.)
  • Whether to offer incentives to reviewers (e.g. an honorarium)
  • The review criteria (e.g. peer review rubric)
  • What tools to use for review (e.g. Word, Google Docs, Hypothesis, etc.)
  • The timeline for returning reviews

Writing a review statement

Review statements are a great way to let potential adopters know your textbook has undergone peer review and is a high-quality resource. It’s also an opportunity to credit your reviewers.

Before you publish your OER, you can add a review statement to the resource. This may be a formal statement in a separate section of the back matter or it may be an acknowledgement in the introduction - where ever best suits the resource and the review process. For examples of a formal review statements, have a look at these links: