Support Role 4.3: Manuscript Peer Review
You will read an entire textbook manuscript draft and provide feedback for improvement. We will ask you whether the proposed textbook aligns with statewide curriculum maps and workforce standards, and how well it addresses our four categories of quality: learner focus, representation of diverse voices, accessibility, and Oregon context. Your feedback will be used by Revising Authors to finalize the open textbook manuscript for publication.
On this project, being a manuscript Peer Reviewer means:
- Reading the entire textbook manuscript
- Completing a review via a Google Form
- Optionally adding comments in-line on the manuscript document.
The Google Form is the primary feedback mode that will guide revision of the text. This is how we will confirm your review for payment. Once your form is submitted, we will begin the process to compensate you for your time. While you will be credited as a reviewer in the published book, your form responses will be anonymous to the author unless you choose to identify yourself.
Note that this manuscript has not been professionally copyedited; that will occur at a later date. Please focus your comments on content and approach rather than punctuation and grammar. Substantive comments and important points to convey belong in your form responses.
You can see an example of the questions that Peer Reviewers were asked about a past project by visiting {Course #} Manuscript Peer Review Questions [Google Form].
Optionally, you can also use the commenting function in Google Docs to leave supplemental feedback directly in the manuscript. Your name will be connected with your comments. Multiple reviewers and textbook authors will have access to this document. This space is for supplemental feedback only. Please use the form as your primary method for providing feedback.
Optional comments in the manuscript can use this shorthand:
| Shorthand | Explanation |
|---|---|
| EQUITY | Content has the potential to cause harm to historically underrepresented or marginalized groups. Please elaborate and suggest an alternative. |
| UPDATE | Content, disciplinary approach, media, or scholarship is out of date. Please suggest an alternative source with a link. |
| CORRECT | Content or media is inaccurate, unclear, or imprecise. Please suggest a correction. |
| FOCUS | Overly detailed information gets too much into the weeds for an introductory student audience. Highlight sentence, paragraph, or section as needed. |
| ADD | Content, approach, media, or scholarship is missing an essential term, concept, or explanation. Please elaborate. |
Licenses and Attributions for Manuscript Peer Review
Open content, original
“Manuscript Peer Review” by Open Oregon Educational Resources is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Open content, shared previously
“OER Pathways Developmental Rubric and Editorial Shorthand” by Stephanie Lenox for Chemeketa Press is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
