Peer Review
In accordance with MacEwan Open Books’ Memorandum of Understanding, MacEwan University members are required to have two subject matter experts provide a peer-review of new works created and hosted on MacEwan University Library’s Pressbooks platform. At least one of these two reviewers must be external to the MacEwan University. (Exceptions may apply concerning minor adaptations of existing works.)
We recommend having works peer-reviewed prior to any copy-editing of the work.
While following a more traditional blind peer-review process is an option, authors are encouraged to use an open peer-review process whereby the author and reviewers can directly discuss changes and adjustments to benefit student learning, and the reviewers can receive recognition for their contributions in the book metadata (instructions below).
Authors may choose to provide reviewers with a financial honourarium for their service if available funding for their book project permits. Contact openbooks@macewan.ca if requiring assistance with creating a contract for such services.
The Peer Review Process
Sharing Unpublished Works with Reviewers
When recruiting reviewers, be sure to give them at least 3 weeks to review your work, and send them a reminder a few days prior to the deadline if you have not heard back yet.
Once someone has agreed to complete a peer-review, give them access to your unpublished work using one of the following methods:
- Option 1: Email openbooks@macewan.ca with the reviewer’s name and email to request that they be added as a “Contributor” to the work. Once this is complete, they should receive an email giving them access to view the work.
- Option 2: Go to Export and export a PDF copy of your work in its entirety to email to them for them to review.
Review Criteria
Send reviewers the following open textbook review criteria to help guide their feedback. Feel free to modify this criteria as needed to ensure useful feedback on your specific work. Remember to include a review deadline and brief overview of the work and its intended audience.
- Comprehensiveness: Does the text adequately cover the topic(s) addressed?
- Content Accuracy: Is content error-free and unbiased?
- Relevance: Is content up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time? Is the text written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement?
- Clarity: Given the primary audience (see above), is the text written in lucid, accessible prose, and does it provide adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used?
- Organization/Structure/Flow: Are the topics in the text presented in a logical, clear, and consistent fashion?
- Additional feedback (optional):
Additional Feedback
Crediting Reviewers in Book Metadata
To give credit to your reviews, log into Pressbooks and go to Book Info in the left-hand menu. Add reviewers to the section under Reviewer(s).
