Thank you for being a Peer Reviewer for the Open Curriculum Development Project! Please read Unit 0 for an introduction to the entire project.

We invite peer review at two stages of open textbook manuscript development. During Year 1 we conduct a preliminary review, where we seek feedback on the {Course #} About This Book document, a planning document that includes the author team’s goals for the textbook, equity statement, and draft outline. During Year 2, peer reviewers read and respond to a complete open textbook manuscript draft of approximately 8 chapters. Peer Reviewers may participate in either or both reviews.

We compensate Peer Reviewers as follows:

• $50, usually via gift card, for submitting a {Course #} About This Book review form
• $500, via your institution’s payroll or via Personal Service Contract, for submitting a manuscript review form.

Peer Review in the Open Curriculum Development Project

In this project we practice a form of open peer review. This is a departure from traditional peer review in which reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers can choose for their feedback to only be shared with authors anonymously, but they also have an opportunity to leave Google Doc comments that are associated with their own name. This practice allows for a conversation and encourages collegiality and accountability. In all cases, authors know who their reviewers are, even if they don’t know exactly which reviewer provided what feedback.

Peer review is integral to the production of textbooks in this project. Its presence signals to a prospective adopter that the work has rigorous standards for quality. This is especially significant when creating openly licensed textbooks, as the quality, comprehensiveness, clarity, and currency of open textbooks and open educational resources is often called into question by skeptics. Peer review is important to dispel these myths.

External perception aside, peer review is an important means for authors to receive feedback that will make the textbook stronger. We value the expertise of colleagues who help us ensure that the content is appropriate, accurate, and able to adequately cover the material.

Your review will ensure that the materials will be widely relevant in Oregon. In particular, we want to ensure that the project succeeds by providing high-quality content with an equity lens.

For a deep dive into peer review, including innovative practices, we recommend optionally visiting Peer Review: A Critical Primer and Practical Course [Website]. The author of this book, Emily Ford, helped our program develop our peer review process.

Open Curriculum Project Textbook Criteria for Success

The Open Curriculum Project Textbook Criteria for Success describes concretely what we mean by high-quality course materials designed with an equity lens. Please keep these criteria in mind when conducting your review.

Our criteria are divided into four categories that, when layered together, make up our definition of high-quality course materials.

Learner focus

• Chapter is written clearly and uses inclusive language
• Chapter anticipates learner variability (reading level: grades 8-12)
• Chapter-level objectives are listed and aligned with the content of the chapter
• Chapter contains all the parts needed to accomplish the learning objectives
• Chapter includes multiple forms of media that are relevant to the text
• Student discussion and reflection questions are clearly identified in call out boxes or predictable places in the chapter
• Chapter includes at least 3 accessible H5P interactives that are tied to chapter learning objectives
• Chapter is well organized and reads as a unified text
• Chapter is consistent in tone, approach, and style

Representation of diverse voices

• Chapter includes diverse images, voices, viewpoints, or perspectives
• Chapter lifts up historically minoritized identities
• Chapter contains up-to-date, relevant, and diverse scholarship and examples
• Chapter includes accurate citations and attribution statements

Accessibility

• Images include figure captions and either alt text or long descriptions; do not rely on color to connote meaning; are drafted at high resolution
• Videos include accurate captions, audio description, and transcripts (including when shared as optional content)
• Chapter uses consistent headings, in order, that break up the content into a predictable cadence
• Up to 10 key terms are listed that reinforce chapter concepts, are defined as Glossary Terms, and are aligned with chapter-level objectives
• Total chapter engagement is scoped to 10,000 words, or no more than 90 minutes of total engagement (approximately 72 minutes of reading time + 18 minutes of required multimedia)
• All links include descriptive text with the link destination, as well as framing that connects to the learning objectives

Oregon context

• Copyright restrictions are minimized so that downstream users (your Oregon colleagues) have permission to revise, remix, and share forward
• Chapter spotlights are relevant and inclusive of diverse Oregon perspectives
• Chapter spotlights invite Oregon students to connect lived experiences to chapter content
• Figure captions are clearly connected to chapter learning objectives and include a statement/question inviting Oregon students to make connections with lived experience

Community Guidelines

Peer Reviewers are expected to follow the Open Oregon Educational Resources Community Guidelines [Website] when participating in the peer review process. Please read the guidelines below carefully.

Open Oregon Educational Resources provides a supportive environment in which to learn about open education. This community values equity, fairness, accessibility, empathy, and thoughtfulness. All community members are expected to exercise consideration and respect in speech and actions, which may look like…

• Use welcoming and inclusive language.
• Hold your opinions with humility.
• Use “I” statements to speak from your own experiences.
• Ask before sharing someone else’s story or comment.
• Make space, take space: if you speak a lot, let others speak; if you haven’t spoken up, try to contribute.
• Remember that it may not be possible to maintain confidentiality in an online environment.
• If you overhear or observe language or or action that expresses, reinforces, upholds or sympathizes with any form of systemic social domination, please consider interrupting. Suggested wording for “calling out” and “calling in”: Interrupting Bias: Calling Out vs. Calling In [Website].

If you have questions, comments, or suggestions regarding these guidelines, or need to report a community guideline violation, please contact the Project Manager.

Licenses and Attributions for Peer Reviewer Role and Responsibilities

Open content, original

“Peer Reviewer Role and Responsibilities” by Open Oregon Educational Resources is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Open content, shared previously

“Peer Review in the Open Curriculum Development Project” is adapted from Why Does Peer Review Matter? by Stephanie Lenox, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

“Community Guidelines” by Open Oregon Educational Resources is licensed under CC BY 4.0. This statement was adapted with permission from Guidelines for Respectful GSA Spaces by GLSEN.