MERLOT/Physics Peer Review Overview

Review Goals:

Peer Reviews are a key aspect of the MERLOT project. These reviews are meant to:

1. Recognize quality learning objects and the efforts of their authors.
2. Help instructors and students find and use materials to enhance learning.
3. Aid in the further development of educational materials.

The MERLOT/Physics Editorial Board has created a broad collection of items and indicate quality through the reviews, rather than limiting the collection to only what we perceive to be the best items. This is meant to meet the diverse needs of users. Materials on MERLOT/Physics are checked for basic scientific soundness and operation, and those items that do not meet a minimum level of quality are removed.

The MERLOT/Physics Editorial Board is looking for reviewers to help in this process. As a reviewer you will receive a letter of recognition from the MERLOT project and a yearly statement outlining your contributions.

If you wish to learn more, have questions, or would like to volunteer, contact the MERLOT/Physics Editor at physics@merlot.org.

Peer Review Process:

The following is an outline of the MERLOT/Physics Review Process:

• Materials posted on MERLOT/Physics are triaged (quick, preliminary review) by at least one Editorial Board Member to select high quality items for review and remove inappropriate submissions. The goal is to review the highest quality items.
• Materials to be reviewed are assigned to two reviewers. The reviews cover three dimensions, the Quality of Content, the Effectiveness as a Teaching and Learning Tool, and the Ease of Use for Teachers and Students.
  Click here for information about the MERLOT/Physics Peer Review Criteria.
• Because they are posted for public view, reviews are written in a constructive manner, but highlight both positive aspects of materials and potential problems in their use.
• Reviews are entered in the MERLOT Peer Review workflow system by each individual reviewer. When individual reviews are completed, the two reviewers collaborate to create a single composite review. When necessary, significant differences between the individual reviews are resolved by the Editorial Board.
• Composite reviews are sent to authors for their comments and approval to post on the MERLOT site. If authors do not respond within two weeks, reviews are posted. Approval to post is requested because the opinions of the authors can better inform the reviews, authors value the feedback on their work, and in most cases they did not submit their material to MERLOT and may not know of the review process.
• When approved by authors, reviews are posted on MERLOT. Authors comments will be posted with the review if they wish.
• Once a review is posted on MERLOT, authors are sent a letter recognizing their work.