Research Article

Problematizing Peer Review: Academic Librarians’ Pedagogical Approaches to Peer Review

  • Lana Mariko Wood (California State University, East Bay)
  • Gr Keer (California State University, East Bay)


INTRODUCTION This study is the first to consider how academic librarians’ understanding of and participation in the peer review process influences their information literacy pedagogy and practice. METHODS This mixed-methods study uses a modified sequential explanatory design, beginning with a survey of academic librarians in the United States and Canada, followed by interviews with interested study participants. RESULTS & DISCUSSION The researchers find that academic librarians frequently teach about peer review, but approaches vary widely, and though some have adapted the Framework to fit their instruction about peer review, there are no best practices. Instructor demands, the length of instructional sessions, and student level influence whether and how academic librarians contextualize the peer review process. While some academic librarians draw from their personal experience in the peer review process as authors, reviewers, and/or editors in their teaching, academic librarians do not consistently report their personal experience as an influence on their teaching of the peer review process to students. CONCLUSION This article argues that academic librarians should consider the place of peer review in information literacy instruction, including interrogating how scaffolding instruction about peer review may provide a disservice to students from an equity perspective. The authors urge academic librarians who have it to draw on personal experience to contextualize their instruction about peer review.

Keywords: Academic librarians, peer review, information literacy instruction, critical librarianship

How to Cite:

Wood, L. M. & Keer, G., (2021) “Problematizing Peer Review: Academic Librarians’ Pedagogical Approaches to Peer Review”, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 9(1), p.eP2399. doi:



Published on
05 Mar 2021
Peer Reviewed