The authors taught two peer review courses for undergraduate students. The first cohort followed a full 14-week course specifically on peer review in biology (n=9), whilst the second data set comes from a single unit included as a part of a course on vaccines (n=10). In both courses, students reviewed as yet unpublished papers selected from online preprint sites.
The first cohort was initially introduced to peer review by reading and discussing a range of materials:
- An authentic manuscript
- The reviews it received
- The letter from the editor
- The reply from the authors detailing the changes made (or not made)
- The final published article
The students then all wrote individual reviews of a pre-print manuscript selected by the instructor, which was later discussed in class. Thereafter, the students were placed in groups and carried out a second individual review on a preprint manuscript selected by the group. Here, follow-up entailed reading the instructor’s individual feedback for each review and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s writing. The group then synthesised everything into one group review. In the final stage of the course, students carried out a third individual review on a preprint manuscript of their choice.
The second cohort, followed a similar, shorter module within another course. Here, the initial introduction stage was greatly reduced and the third individual peer review was omitted.
Both cohorts of students kept diaries of their experiences and wrote weekly reflections on their own learning, based on specific prompts. In the process of writing their reviews, students were in contact with the original authors by email or video conference.
As might be expected, students’ peer reviews got better the more they worked with their course. One student expresses this as follows:
After thoroughly reviewing the standard requirements for a publication, as well as the scientific theory supporting the article, I felt surprisingly well-equipped to offer constructive feedback on the assigned preprint.
However, there were other beneficial effects that the researchers also noticed.
During both courses students reported an increasing sense of belonging in the field and the biology program itself. This led to the development of the students’ personal and professional science identity.
The authors conclude that with suitable guidance, undergraduate students are capable of learning to produce good quality peer reviews. They attribute the success of the courses to three specific aspects:
- Explicit instruction in peer review norms that address the hidden curriculum
- Iterative practice, feedback and peer collaboration
- The opportunity to authentically participate in the science community.
One particular aspect of the course that the authors wished to highlight was the format of individual feedback followed by group synthesis. The authors suggest that this particular sequencing could potentially be used to good effect in areas other than peer review.
Comment: The authors’ use of preprint manuscripts in these courses is a fantastic idea. Instead of students reviewing each other’s work—as is common in the humanities—undergraduate biology students carried out authentic peer reviews and as a result, gained a sense of belonging in the discipline.
For those who are interested, a list of preprint servers can be found at: List of preprint repositories
The increase in sense of belonging and strengthened science identity noted in this study strikes me as an important finding. In the sciences we have high drop-out rates and here is something that could potentially counteract this trend. As pointed out by the authors, this sense of “fitting in” can be particularly important for students from minority groups or non-traditional backgrounds.
Finally, given the centrality of the peer review system in the sciences, it is perhaps surprising that undergraduate science students are seldom introduced to authentic peer review. Since the majority of students do not continue with their science studies beyond first degree level, there are potentially worrying consequences for scientific literacy in society at large. How can we expect the general public to understand the processes of knowledge creation in the academy when only researchers learn about the system of peer review?
Text: John Airey, Department of Teaching and Learning
Keywords: Peer review, Disciplinary literacy, Communities of practice, Belonging, Science identity.
