Toward Greater Transparency and Inclusion in Manuscript Review Processes: A Relational Model

Alison Cook-Sather; Ruth L. Healey

doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.12.23

Authors

Alison Cook-Sather Bryn Mawr College https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0116-7158
Ruth L. Healey University of Chester https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6872-4900

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.12.23

Keywords:

peer-review, transparency, emotional experience of feedback, rigor, three Ps of SoTL

Abstract

Peer review is widely accepted as critical to legitimating scholarly publication, and yet, it runs the risk of reproducing inequities in publishing processes and products. Acknowledging at once the historical need to legitimize SoTL publications, the current danger of reproducing exclusive practices, and the aspirational goal to “practice what we preach” as SoTL practitioners regarding effective feedback to students, we argue for rethinking “rigor,” developing more inclusive practices, and engaging in greater transparency in relation to peer review. To situate our discussion, we revisit foundational work in the development of SoTL and then offer an analytical framework informed by recent scholarship on redefining rigor and the emotional experience of receiving feedback. Using this framework, we propose a relational model of peer review and present two examples of efforts in which we have been involved as founding co-editors of the International Journal for Students as Partners to move toward greater transparency and inclusion in manuscript review processes.

Read the corresponding ISSOTL blog post here.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Alison Cook-Sather, Bryn Mawr College

Alison Cook-Sather (USA) is Mary Katharine Woodworth professor of education at Bryn Mawr College. She has published 10 books and over 160 other works on student-faculty pedagogical partnership, and she has consulted in 13 countries on this practice.

Ruth L. Healey, University of Chester

Ruth L. Healey (GBR) is a professor of learning and teaching and a University Innovation Fellow at the University of Chester and a director of Healey HE Consultants. She was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in 2017.

References

Abbot, Sophia. 2024. “SoTL Citizen: A Memoir of Home and Exile in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” In Becoming a SoTL Scholar, edited by Janice Miller-Young and Nancy Chick. Elon, North Carolina: Elon University Open Access Series. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/becoming-a-sotl-scholar/section-1/chapter-3/.

Arumugam, Ashokan, Poonam Mehta, and G. David Baxter. 2020. “Doubleblind Peer Review of Manuscripts: Opportunities, Challenges, and Way Forward”, Physical Therapy Reviews 25 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2019.1698161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2019.1698161

Babin, Barry J., and Julie Guidry Moulard.2018. “To What is the Review Process Relevant? What’s Right and What’s Wrong with Peer Review for Academic Business Journals.” European Business Review 30 (2): 145–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2017-0162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2017-0162

Brookfield, Stephen D. 2017. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Brooks, Jamiella, and Julie McGurk. 2022. “Rigor as Inclusive Practice.” Teaching + Learning Lab, October 6, 2022. https://tll.mit.edu/rigor-as-inclusive-practice/.

Coalter, Jodi H. 2023. “Citation Power: Overcoming Marginalization One Citation at a Time.” In Perspectives on Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Libraries, edited by Nandita S. Mani, Michelle A. Cawley, Emily P. Jones, 62–77. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7255-2.ch004

Chick, Nancy. 2024. “‘Dear Author’: A Transparent SoTL Peer Review.” Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.26209/td2024vol17iss11800.

Chun-Man Ho, Roger, Kwok-Kei Mak, Ren Tao, Yanxia Lu, Jeffrey R. Day, and Fang Pan. 2013. “Views on the Peer Review System of Biomedical Journals: An Online Survey of Academics from High-Ranking Universities.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 13 (74): 1–15. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74

Cliffe, Anthony, Alison Cook-Sather, Mick Healey, Ruth Healey, Beth Marquis, Kelly E. Matthews, Lucy Mercer-Mapstone, Anit Ntem, Varun Puri, and Cherie Woolmer. 2017. “Launching a Journal about and through Students as Partners.” International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (1). https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/ijsap/issue/view/306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3194

Cook-Sather, Alison. 2024. “Rethinking Time in Preparing for and Reflecting on Teaching: Pedagogical Partnership with Student Consultants as Empowering Educational Development.” To Improve the Academy 43 (1). https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.4793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.4793

Cook-Sather, Alison, Sophia Abbot, and Peter Felten. 2019. “Legitimizing Reflective Writing in SoTL: ‘Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor’ Revisited.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 7 (2): 14–27. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.2

Cook-Sather, Alison, Catherine Bovill, and Peter Felten. 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Learning & Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cook-Sather, Alison, and Alice Lesnick. 2023. “Engaged Voices, Engaged Beings: Exploring Tensions, Transgressions, and Risks in Using Co-Created, Shared Google Docs to Build Classroom Community and to Co-Author.” The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy 23. https://cuny.manifoldapp.org/projects/jitp-23.

Cook-Sather, Alison, Kelly E. Matthews, and Mick Healey. 2020. “Writing about Learning and Teaching in Precarious and Promising Times.” AAC&U Blog post. https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/writing-about-learning-and-teaching-in-precarious-and-promising-times.

Cook-Sather, Alison, and Van Nguyen. 2023. “Using Shared Google Docs to Co-Create Life-Affirming Learning: A Case of Trauma-Informed Instructional Design at the Tertiary Level.” The Journal of Applied Instructional Design 12 (1). https://dx.doi.org/10.51869/121/acsvn. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59668/567.11201

Cruz, Laura, Eileen Grodziak, and Hillary H. Steiner. 2024. “Practice What We Preach?: A Review of Journal Publishing Practices Related to Reflective Writing in SoTL.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2024.180105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2024.180105

Enslin, Penny, and Nicki Hedge. 2018. “On Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’ in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?” Journal of Philosophy of Education 52 (3): 379–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12312

Felten, Peter. 2013. “Principles of Good Practice in SoTL.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal 1 (1): 121–25. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.121

Felten, Peter, Leigh Z. Gilchrist, and Alexa Darby. 2006. “Emotion and Learning: Feeling our Way Toward a New Theory of Reflection in Service-Learning.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 12: 38–46. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0012.204.

Friberg, Jennifer, Mandy Frake-Mistak, Ruth L. Healey, Shannon Sipes, Julie Mooney, Stephanie Sanchez, and Karena Waller. 2021. “A Developmental Framework for Mentorship in SoTL Illustrated by Three Examples of Unseen Opportunities for Mentoring.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 (1): 395–413. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.26

Garrido-Gallego, Yeimy. 2018. “Open Peer Review for Evaluating Academic Legal Publications: The ‘Antidote’ to an ‘Ill’ Blind Peer Review?” Tilburg Law Review 23 (1): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.128

George, Elizabeth. 2023. “Peer Review Basics: Who is Reviewer 2?” Researcher.Life, September 29, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/peer-review-basics-who-is-reviewer-2/#:~:text=Peer%20reviewers%20are%20expected%20to,reviewer%20among%20a%20manuscript's%20evaluators.

Google Oxford Languages. 2024. “Rigour.” Accessed April 2, 2024. https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+rigour&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB991GB991&oq=definition+o&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgAEEUYOBg7MggIABBFGDgYOzIGCAEQRRg5MgoIAhAAGLEDGIAEMgcIAxAAGIAEMgoIBBAAGLEDGIAEMgcIBRAAGIAEMgcIBhAAGIAEMgoIBxAAGLEDGIAEMg0ICBAAGIMBGLEDGIAEMgcICRAAGI8C0gEIMjIzMGowajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

Healey, Mick, Alison Cook-Sather, and Kelly E. Matthews. 2020. “Expanding the Conventional Writing Genres: A Matter of Equity and Inclusion.” Educational Developments 21 (3): 8–11.

Healey, Ruth L., Mick Healey, and Anthony Cliffe. 2018. “Engaging in Radical Work: Students as Partners in Academic Publishing.” Efficiency Exchange (Universities UK and Jisc in partnership with Hefce and the Leadership Foundation).

Hill, Jennifer, Kathy Berlin, Julia Choate, Lisa Cravens-Brown, Lisa McKendrick-Calder, and Susan Smith. 2021a. “Can Relational Feed-Forward Enhance Students’ Cognitive and Affective Responses to Assessment?” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.18

Hill, Jennifer, Ruth L. Healey, Harry West, and Chantal Déry. 2021b. “Pedagogic Partnership in Higher Education: Encountering Emotion in Learning and Enhancing Student Wellbeing.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 45 (2): 167–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1661366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1661366

Hill, Jennifer, Kathy Berlin, Julia Choate, Lisa Cravens-Brown, Lisa McKendrick-Calder, and Susan Smith. 2023. “Emotions Experienced by Instructors Delivering Written Feedback and Dialogic Feed-Forward.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 11. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.6

Hutchings, Pat. 2000. Opening Lines: Approaching the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

International Journal for Students as Partners. https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/ijsap.

Irfanullah, Haseeb. 2021. “Let’s Talk About the Volunteers in Scholarly Publishing.” The Scholarly Kitchen, July 21, 2021. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/07/21/lets-talk-about-the-volunteers-in-scholarly-publishing/.

Kaur, Amrita. Forthcoming. “Developing an Open and Dialogic Review of Reflective Essays: An Empathic and Inclusive Approach to Advance Students-as-Partners Practices.” International Journal for Students as Partners.

Masika, Rachel, and Jennie Jones. 2016. “Building Student Belonging and Engagement: Insights into Higher Education Students’ Experiences of Participating and Learning Together.” Teaching in Higher Education 21(2): 138–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585

Matthews, Kelly, E., Catherine Sherwood, Eimear Enright, and Alison Cook-Sather. 2024. “What Do Students and Teachers Talk about When They Talk Together about Feedback and Assessment? Expanding Notions of Feedback Literacy through Pedagogical Partnership.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 49 (1): 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2170977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2170977

McDonald, Jacquie, and Aileen Cater-Steel, editors. 2017. Communities of Practice: Facilitating Social Learning in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2879-3

Nelson, Craig. 2010. “Dysfunctional Illusions of Rigor: Lessons from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development 28, 177–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2010.tb00602.x

Ollis, Lucie, and Karen Gravett. 2020. “The Emerging Landscape of Student–Staff Partnerships in Higher Education.” In Enhancing Student-Centred Teaching in Higher Education, edited by Karen Gravett, Nadya Yakovchuk, and Ian M. Kinchin, 11–27. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35396-4_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35396-4_2

Overall, Jeffrey. 2015. “Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid: The Academic Journal Review Process in the Social Sciences Is Broken, Let’s Fix It.” Journal of Academic Ethics 13: 277–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9237-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9237-3

PAEditorial. 2021. “Double-Blind Peer Review: Pros, Cons and Everything In-Between.” Last modified October 29, 2021. https://paeditorial.co.uk/post/double-blind-peer-review-the-pros-the-cons-and-everything-in-between/#:~:text=The%20anonymity%20allows%20the%20reviewer,%2C%20gender%2C%20and%20personal%20bias.

Pekrun, Reinhard. 2019. “Inquiry on Emotions in Higher Education: Progress and Open Problems.” Studies in Higher Education 44 (10): 1806–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665335

Rowe, Anna. D. 2017. “Feelings about Feedback: The Role of Emotions in Assessment for Learning.” In Scaling up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. The Enabling Power of Assessment, edited by David Carless, Susan M. Bridges, Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan, and Rick Glofcheski, 159–172. Singapore: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1_11

Ryan, Tracii, and Michael Henderson. 2018. “Feeling Feedback: Students’ Emotional Responses to Educator Feedback.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (6): 880–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456

Shulman, Lee. 2001. “From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1(1): 48–53. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1582.

Taylor and Francis. 2023. “What are the Different Types of Peer Review?” Accessed April 2, 2024: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/types-peer-review/#:~:text=Single%2Danonymous%20peer%20review&text=This%20is%20the%20most%20common,will%20hold%20this%20against%20them.

Tennant, Jonathan P., and Tony Ross-Hellauer. 2020. “The Limitations to Our Understanding of Peer Review.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1): 6. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1

West, Richard E, and Peter J. Rich. 2012. “Rigor, Impact and Prestige: A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Scholarly Publications.” Innovative Higher Education 37 (5): 359–71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-012-9214-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9214-3

Winstone, Naomi E., Robert A. Nash, James Rowntree, and Michael Parker. 2017. “‘It’d Be Useful, but I Wouldn’t Use It’: Barriers to University Students’ Feedback Seeking and Recipience.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 2026–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032

Yahlnaaw. 2019. “T’aats’iigang – Stuffing a Jar Full.” International Journal for Students as Partners 3 (2): 6–10. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v3i2.4081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v3i2.4081