Peer Review in Education

I am seeing firsthand the growing challenges in the journal peer-review process. Five consecutive declines from potential reviewers I invited for a manuscript, such as the one below, is an increasingly common occurrence. It highlights the increasing pressures on our academic community and processes, where qualified (and unpaid) reviewers are becoming overwhelmed with requests whilst the system strives to maintain the rigorous standards we rely on. We need to re-think how we value and support peer review. Tangible incentives for reviewers? Alternative peer-review models that distribute the workload more equitably? #AcademicPublishing #PeerReview #OpenScience

Struggling to turn piles of papers into a strong, insightful literature review? This 5 C’s of writing a literature review (Cite, Compare, Contrast, Critique, Connect) narrow it down well. But how do you actually do these well in practice? Here’s how I teach my PhD mentees to move beyond theory and into action: 1. CITE: Be strategic, not exhaustive. ✅ Don’t just collect papers, curate them. Prioritize studies that shape the field, influence your thinking or set up your argument. 📌 Use citation mapping tools (like Connected Papers or ResearchRabbit to visually trace foundational works and identify key influencers fast. 2. COMPARE: Patterns matter more than papers. ✅ Group studies by themes: methods, theories, findings, not by author name or publication date. 📌 Create a simple comparison matrix in Excel, SciSpace or Anara to spot patterns across studies. You’ll see trends (and gaps) much faster this way. 3. CONTRAST: Don’t be afraid to question the giants. ✅ Highlight conflicting evidence, contradictory findings or evolving theories. This shows depth. 📌 Always ask yourself: Why might these studies disagree? Sample? Method? Context? Theory? This leads to stronger insights. 4. CRITIQUE: Not all papers deserve equal weight. ✅ Evaluate studies for quality, not just relevance. Weak studies make weak foundations. 📌 Apply a simple checklist when reading: clarity of aim, appropriateness of method, robustness of findings. Highlight these in your notes for easy reference. 5. CONNECT: Your review needs to lead somewhere. ✅ Your literature review is a bridge to your research question. 📌 After reviewing each group of studies, explicitly write: “What does this mean for my study?” This helps transition from review to rationale. A literature review is not about how much you’ve read. It’s about how clearly you can show your reader: 📍 What’s known 📍 What’s contested 📍 What’s missing 📍 And why your study matters PS: Which of these 5 C’s do YOU find the trickiest to apply? Share in the comments REPOST this to help others.

Most startups make the same performance review mistakes. They either skip them entirely ("we're too small") or mimic what Big Tech does ("let's do 360s for our 15-person team"). Here's the framework I use to design review cycles that fit for different sizes and stages: Frequency by stage: 0-35 people: Quarterly development reviews 35-200 people: Semi-annual reviews (with optional off-cycle developmental check-ins). Combine compensation and performance reviews at this point. 200+ people: Annual reviews (with optional off-cycle developmental check-ins) Timing matters more than you think. Don't plan promotions and merit increases during low cash flow periods. While January and July are classic review times, if March and September are bad cash flow months for your business model, move your performance review schedule. Review complexity should scale with headcount AND experience: Start with self + manager reviews (180°), even at 1,000 people if you've never run reviews before. Add peer feedback (270°) after 1-2 successful cycles. Full 360s only when you're ready for the complexity. Once you’ve moved to semi-annual reviews with compensation considerations included, it helps to run a tight schedule with clear week-by-week deadlines: Week 1: Self and upward reviews due Weeks 2-3: Downward reviews due — 2 weeks help here for managers with 5+ direct reports and stragglers who were OOO for the whole self and upward review week Weeks 4-5: Manager calibrations Weeks 6-7: Real-time performance review conversations and compensation decision-making Week 8: Compensation and promotion decisions shared Week 9: Title and compensation changes go into effect Tool threshold: 20 people. Below that, Google Forms works. Above that, invest in something like Lattice (my recommended tool)—the time savings on scheduling and reminders alone pays for itself. The biggest mistake? Treating performance reviews like an HR project instead of a business process. Get the sequencing and feedback mechanisms right, and they become a strategic advantage. More tactical details on building review cycles that scale coming in my next newsletter. __ 👋 I'm Melissa Theiss, 4x Head of People and Business Operations and advisor for bootstrapped and VC-backed SaaS companies. 🗞️ In my newsletter, “The Business of People,” I share tips and tricks that help People leaders think like business leaders.

𝗜𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗜 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗲𝗱. Early on, I chased every funding opportunity that vaguely aligned with our mission. When resources are tight, it’s easy to reshape your work to meet funders’ interests—even if it feels like squeezing a round peg into a square hole. Over time, I learned that this approach comes with costs that can be more detrimental than the reward they bring. These include: 🍃 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘁: We move away from our original purpose when we adjust our programs to fit a funder’s requirements. This “mission drift” can dilute our core impact, spreading us thin and lessening our unique value. 💪🏿𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗲: Constantly pivoting to satisfy funders’ priorities rather than focusing on a clear mission can lead to burnout and disillusionment, making retaining talented, passionate staff harder. 🎯𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀: Casting a wide net without a strategy leads to scattered efforts and less productive results. This especially affects the development team, making them less efficient and the relationships they build more surface-level and less impactful. So, how do you ensure funder alignment? I use a weighted rubric that keeps us focused on impact. I rate each funder on key criteria—like mission alignment, application ease, and grant size—scoring them as low, medium, or high. We only pursue funders who meet our threshold so we can focus on partnerships that genuinely support our mission and goals. The criteria include: 🚀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟬%): Does the funder have a history of supporting causes like yours? Funders interested in your mission area will likely be a better fit. 💰 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗶𝘇𝗲 (𝟮𝟱%): Does the grant amount align with your financial needs? You also need to factor in the costs of applying for the opportunity. Does the team time pay off? 👥 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 (𝟭𝟬%): Is there an existing link through board members or mutual partners? Familiarity can create a trust-based relationship, often leading to a smoother collaboration. 🧘🏿♀️ 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 (𝟮𝟬%): A clear, grantee-focused application process means your team can focus more on impact than on admin. 🧩 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟱%): Does the funder’s mission support your core priorities? Funding that aligns naturally with your main programs allows you to focus on impact without significant shifts in strategy. 💬 How do you evaluate funding opportunities? What would you add to the above criteria? #internationaldevelopment #fundraising #nonprofitafrica #fundingafrica

If we want research to have societal impact, we need to think beyond communication and dissemination. In my conversations with researchers across public health, clinical practice, and related fields, a recurring issue is that we need fewer controlled trials and more implementation-focused research. Researchers know this. Practitioners and policy-makers definitely know this. And yet, implementation research is harder to get funded, harder to publish, and often seen as a career risk, despite being the type of research needed to drive societal change. When we talk about optimising societal impact, we often focus on the need for more and better dissemination and communication of research to non-academic audiences. And, while this is important, we know that the real issue starts much earlier in the research process. How research is generated shapes whether it can be translated into practice or policy. To close the research–practice–policy gap, we need to reward the use of designs and methods that are fit for purpose. We need to reward those that attend to complexity, context, and the realities of implementation. As someone who works at the intersection of research, policy and practice, I’ve seen the disconnect. Research designs with strong internal validity (like RCTs) are often prioritised, but they rarely tell us how or why something works, for whom, or under what conditions. To improve uptake and usefulness of research, we need to: ✔️ Balance internal and external validity ✔️ Use designs that make sense for complex, context-dependent challenges ✔️ Elevate methodologies that support both rigour and relevance It's also time for a shift in how we assess funding applications. What if review criteria explicitly considered: ✔️ Implementation feasibility ✔️ Scalability ✔️Relevance to practice and policy ✔️Appropriateness of the design to the research problem This would require: ✔️Review panels with diverse methodological expertise ✔️Quality indicators for translational potential ✔️Training for reviewers in knowledge translation assessment 💡 If we’re serious about societal impact, then it’s not just about what we do after the research is completed, it’s about how we design it in the first place. I would love to hear how others are navigating these tensions. How do you balance methodological rigour with relevance in your research? And what changes would you like to see in how research is funded and published? If you're working on, or interested in, developing quality indicators for the translational potential of research, I’d love to connect. It’s an area that needs more attention. Image designed using Chat GPT. #ResearchImpact #ImplementationScience #PublicHealth #ResearchFunding #KnowledgeTranslation #ComplexityInResearch #EvaluationDesign #ImpactMatters #HealthPromotion Aurélie Pankowiak (PhD)

⏳ Peer Review Delays: A Silent Career Killer & Scientific Bottleneck Today, my co-authored manuscript was rejected not for quality, but for lack of reviewers. Sixteen experts were contacted. None accepted. Some were even suggested by us. Let that sink in. 📉 No peer review. No feedback. Just rejection. This isn't an isolated incident. It's becoming a norm. And it’s devastating. 🎓 For researchers—especially early-career scientists—delays in peer review aren't just frustrating. They're career-stalling. Grants, promotions, collaborations, and job opportunities often hinge on timely publications. 🧪 For science, every bottleneck in the publication pipeline means delayed progress, slower innovation, and missed opportunities to improve lives—in our case, people with Parkinson’s Disease. We must confront this crisis. 🔁 If you’re part of the academic community: ✅ Accept review requests when you can. ❌ Decline them promptly if you must. 📚 Advocate for systemic changes—faster workflows, incentives for reviewers, and alternative peer review models. 🛠️ The system needs rethinking. We can't let bureaucracy stifle discovery or allow silence to reject science. Let’s protect both scientific integrity and the people behind the work. #Academic_Publishing #Peer_Review_Crisis #Science_Delays #Research_Careers

Our review confirms what many of us already suspect: the peer review system is broken, and AI has made the cracks impossible to ignore. Current AI systems can genuinely help with triage, formatting checks, and structured feedback. The real finding is that peer review was already running on fumes, sustained by the unpaid labor of researchers who are simultaneously being crushed by publish-or-perish demands. The math of asking for more volunteers simply doesn't work when research output is growing exponentially and the reviewer pool is not. What we need isn't more patches but a redesigned system: one that shifts evaluation from counting publications to assessing curated contributions; and that builds community-governed, distributed review models treating evaluation as dialogue rather than gatekeeping. When anyone can generate a paper in an afternoon, the paper itself can no longer be the unit of value. AI can support the conversation that peer review is meant to be, but only if we're willing to redesign the container where it happens. https://lnkd.in/eGEbxWvY

Most performance reviews try to do two jobs at once: 1️⃣ Pick between people for pay, promotion, and roles. 2️⃣ Develop people by finding strengths and gaps. These goals pull in opposite directions. Why this clash happens (brain + math): 🧠 Brain: When a review affects your pay or job, your brain reads it as a threat. Stress goes up. Learning shuts down. Feedback feels like a warning, not help. 🔢 Math: If you focus on ranking people clearly, everyone’s profile looks the same and you lose detail about strengths and weaknesses. If you focus on rich, detailed feedback, clear rankings get fuzzy. You can’t optimize both at the same time. The fix isn’t “blend them better.” You need a third way. Build two separate tracks with different goals, timing, and rules. Track A — Allocate (between people) - Purpose: pay, promotion, role, and staffing decisions. - Timing: set times (e.g., twice a year). - Evidence: common criteria and comparisons across people. - Norms: fairness, consistency, clear documentation. Track B — Develop (within people) - Purpose: growth, new skills, behavior change. - Timing: ongoing, low‑stakes coaching in regular 1:1s. - Evidence: specific behaviors and goals; focus on the future (“feedforward”). - Norms: psychological safety, curiosity, experimentation. Design moves that make it work: 👉 Separate the moments: Never mix ratings or money talks with coaching time. 👉 Separate the artifacts: Use different forms and language for each track. 👉 Separate the roles: Talent review leaders handle Track A; managers/peers coach in Track B. 👉 Give employees a voice: Enable upward feedback and self‑nominations for growth or promotion. 👉 Aim at behavior and the future: Be specific about what to try next, not who someone “is.” Employee gut‑check: “Is this feedback or a warning?” If people can’t tell, the system isn’t truly separate yet. When we honor the polarity—allocate separately, develop safely—performance management can actually serve both business goals. #EmployeeExperience #PerformanceManagement #Leadership #HR

Peer reviewing is a voluntary task, but it’s also one of the most critical responsibilities in academia. It requires time, expertise, care, and a strong sense of academic integrity. And yet, very few of us were ever formally trained for it. We often learn by doing—or by watching others—frequently under pressure and without much guidance. Some of my PhD students are now receiving their first invitations to review papers—a major milestone in their academic journey! But naturally, they're unsure where to start. So, what do I recommend they keep in mind when stepping into this role? ✅ 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘂𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 Before diving into the review, understand the manuscript's type and check the journal’s specific guidelines for that category. This will help you apply the appropriate evaluation criteria. ✅ 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲) 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗲 Feedback should be direct, respectful, and aimed at helping the authors improve their work. Even when identifying significant flaws, your tone should remain collegial—remember, you're offering support, not judgment. Talk to the authors in the same way you would like a reviewer to talk to you when the paper under evaluation is yours! ✅ 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 Don't get overly focused on grammatical issues. Your role is to assess ideas, methodology, overall clarity, logic, and contributions. ✅ 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 Use headings or bullet points to separate your feedback into major comments (e.g., theoretical gaps, methodological concerns) and minor comments (e.g., missing references, formatting issues). This structure helps authors understand your review more easily. ✅ 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘆 Don’t rush through a review, but also avoid perfectionism. Aim for a thorough yet timely response—delayed reviews stall the entire publication process. Personally, I always write a draft and then wait a day or two before revisiting it. Coming back with a fresh perspective helps me refine my comments. ✅ 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 If the paper is outside your expertise, or you’re unable to review it within the requested time frame, it’s best to decline. The integrity of the review process depends on the match between reviewers and subject matter. ✅ 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Ask yourself: Does this manuscript make a meaningful contribution to the field, from a theoretical perspective and in managerial, practical, and/or policy terms? Sometimes a messy draft still holds valuable insights that are worth refining. 👇 [The list continues in the comments] #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearchers #AcademicTips #ResearchCommunity #Reviewers #ScholarlyPublishing #ResponsibleResearch #ReviewerGuidance #AcademicSupport #PublishingAdvice

Evaluation is both an art and a science, balancing systematic analysis with the nuanced understanding of complex interventions. The "Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully" guide by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) introduces a refined framework for using the six evaluation criteria—relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability—in a way that goes beyond checklist approaches. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, adaptability, and context sensitivity in every stage of the evaluation process. This document integrates three decades of global evaluation practice with contemporary priorities such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and human rights frameworks. It underscores the need to consider interconnections, equity gaps, and the holistic impacts of interventions. By providing examples, insights, and practical guidance, the manual ensures that evaluators and decision-makers can navigate diverse contexts, addressing complexities in implementation and fostering meaningful accountability and learning. Tailored for policymakers, evaluators, and development practitioners, this resource elevates evaluation practice to ensure that interventions not only meet their objectives but also generate transformative and sustainable impacts. By adopting its principles, users can advance evidence-based strategies, improving global collaboration and the effectiveness of development cooperation.