Scope, Objectives, Content

Yes, this article is in scope of this publication. In my opinion, this is an important topic: usefulness to students and instructors - in addition to the cost-effectiveness of OER.

Organization

This paper proceeds logically and adheres to the submission guidelines.

Approach and Conclusions

Approaches and conclusions appear sound, with, maybe, one exception.

There is one small item in the discussion that might be handled differently.

“Students also expressed that it helped them understand the material better…”
I found the specific quote in the RQ2 section and within the qualitative responses. I keep asking myself “It helped them understand the material better than what?”

Writing Style, References

I found the paper to be clearly written and easily read.

I recommend that the DOI links provided do not include proxy information for the authors’ institution. For example:
Collins, M. E., Mitchell, N. K., & Nojeim, M. J. (2020). Removing the excuse: Using free course materials to improve student success in general studies courses. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 20(5), 110–125. https://doi-org.ezproxy.mtsu.edu/10.33423/jhetp.v20i5.3041.

Please use https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i5.3041 instead. There are 4 instances of this.

Also, should the references have hanging indents?

 

Application

The paper contributes to the current literature. The benefits of an OER textbook aside from the cost is very important for us to know - from the learners’ and instructors’ viewpoints.

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

I believe that the straightforward presentation of the methods and analysis of the data is a positive aspect of the article.

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

Please see "Approaches and Conclusions."

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Research Assessment
sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×

Scope, Objectives, Content

The article is well within the scope, objectives, and content of the journal. Their approach offers an additional perspective to the existing body of research on faculty and student perceptions of OER. By examining faculty and student satisfaction, it introduces some additional context in OER-use that can be used by practitioners in developing or promoting OER at their institution. 

Organization

The paper proceeds logically and generally adheres to the article guidelines. There are some recommendations added as comments to the draft on naming tables and referencing materials that exist outside of the body of the article itself. 

Approach and Conclusions

The approach and conclusion of the article are sound and supported by their data collection. Since the data collected is on perception-based questions, which are inherently subjective, the conclusions are limited to those that can be reasonably drawing using the data they provided. There are some comments added to the attached draft of the article that make suggestions for some additional clarity. In one instance, the number of participants does not match the number of responses, so the authors are advised to speak to any places where non-responses appear.

 

The literature review contains several recent and important works on the topic, so it clearly demonstrates that the authors are acquainted with the research. Some of the broader statements about OER, such as how they ease the burden on student finances which can increase success and retention, have large bodies of work to support them and the authors are not exhaustive in their citation. I think a few more studies could be cited for some of those, but it's hard to know exactly where to draw the line when there's multiple decades worth of research on that topic to choose from. I support the author's decision to limit the citations to more recent articles that are building on the preceding literature. 

Writing Style, References

The expression and flow of the article are clear and easy to read. There is one small area of confusion with a particular phrase used, that is indicated in a comment on the draft. 

Application

Yes, the authors are transparent about their research processes and make all of their data available. They include the raw data and the data collection instruments for others to use or modify. 

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The article is very easy to read because of it's friendly and clear writing style. 

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

The naming of tables is currently confusing, so I recommend reviewing the comments on the draft on how to make those better. 

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Research Assessment
Highly sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×