International Perspectives on Peer Review as Quality Enhancement

An Assessment of Marketisation of ‘Review’ Through Literature

“…Scholars agree that the structure of academic quality is built upon peer review. They agree with the fact that the higher education educators could find their class being assessed as confronting (Gosling, 2014;Healey, Ambler, Irhammar, Kilfoil, & Lyons, 2014;Kilfoil, 2014;Sachs & Parsell, 2014;Spencer, 2014) and disrespectful. Review of teaching, due to the anonymity and nature of the object of review involved, is different from an academic review of research work (Elizabeth, Fiona, & Tom, 2002;Hames, 2007;Sachs & Parsell, 2014;Spencer, 2014) in journals.…”

Peer Collaboration: Improving Teaching through Comprehensive Peer Review

“…The literature echoes these findings and suggested concerns could be addressed by being sure that: There is adequate training and preparation for reviewers. The process is well defined and understood. There is enough time to build formative data and improve skills before summative feedback is due. The primary focus is on formative aspects of the process. Criteria are developed for online as well as face‐to‐face teaching. The purpose and criteria are clear. Trust is built between academic peers engaged in the process and relationships are clearly defined (Chism, ; Healey, Ambler, Irhammar, Kilfoil, & Lyons, ). The process is transparent. Timing/sequencing of feedback and reviews are geared to provide opportunity for optimal improvement. Make it a clear and significant part of their ongoing review, reward and ranking process. …”