Peer Review in Library 100-Introduction to Information Research

John Pell

Assistant Professor

Hunter College Libraries

What We Did

• Students reviewed the annotated bibliographies of five fellow students using an assessment form.

• The instructor supplied students with their anonymous peer review scores.

What We Used

• Flow Citation Management

• Google Forms

What it Looked Like: Flow Shared Space

What it Looked Like: Google Form

Mistakes Were Made

• Effort to Make the Peer Review Process Anonymous Failed

– However, this resonated with class discussions and assigned readings about the limitations of peer review and possible improvements to the peer review model:

• Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, investigators P. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality?: A randomized controlled trial. Jama. 1998;280(3):240-242.

What I Will (Maybe) Do Differently

• Assign fewer peer reviewers

• Use an open peer review model

• Have students use the same rubric as me

• Share the peer reviewers comments

• Require a self-assessment

Appendix: Library 100 Objectives

• Improve student abilities to:– define and critique concepts in scholarly communication such as

plagiarism, authority, peer review, media bias, publication bias, conflict of interest, and publication impact

– state research questions that reflect awareness of the scope of available information and current research priorities

– translate research questions into strategies for retrieving information

– use technology to organize and publish an annotated bibliography

– cite information sources accurately and ethically according to academic style guidelines.

Appendix: Annotated Bibliography Grading Rubric