Scope, Objectives, Content

Yes, the article is in scope - it presents a case study of an open pedagogy project resulting in a textbook co-authored with students. I believe this topic is important, both because faculty derive great benefit from many different examples of well-done open pedagogy projects involving student authorship, and because this project also focuses on the use of open pedagogy in a library studies course. This second point has additional impact in that it shows a strategy to help spread awareness of and enthusiasm for open educational practices among new librarians and also gives those librarians hands-on experience with open pedagogy from the student side, which would be incredibly valuable in supporting faculty in learning about or implementing open pedagogical assignments.

 

Additionally, the project also shows well how open pedagogy assignments can help students with both content knowledge acquisition and skill development, such as learning how to conduct a peer-review as part of the editing process for the shared work.

Organization

Yes, the article is clear and easy to follow, even on a single read-through. 

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

It’s clear the authors are familiar with the subject area and conducted thorough research in order to provide a clear, helpful, and instructive literature review. I did not find myself recalling any important research that didn’t appear - instead, the prominent authors I expected to see cited seemed well-represented in the paper. The conclusions the authors' draw from their study seem sound and well-balanced between claims of positive impact and acknowledgements of circumstances that may have affected the outcome.

 

I did find two sentences that either need citations to evidence to back them up, or (more likely, I’m guessing) need to be rewritten to make it clear that these are anecdotal, personal observations specific to the authors' institution or program. These sentences appear in the section, “Development of Contemporary Issues in Collection Management (CIiCM)”, in paragraph #5, but I’ll also copy and paste them below:

 

“Online students tend to be older, working professionals with greater outside commitments including work and parenting, and thus with little extra time to contribute to projects after the end of their course work. Conversely, while on campus students often juggle greater course loads and sometimes part- time work, overall they tend to have more time to contribute to extracurricular initiatives, especially those with tangible benefits that might improve pathways to future professional employment such as being an author of a book chapter.”

These sentences need citations/evidence in order to be presented so generally. For example, at some institutions, "on-campus" students may be attending class in-person but living off-campus with children or family-care needs, the same as online students might. Or, an individual student taking in-person courses might also enroll in online courses in the same semester. An in-person student might be working multiple part-time jobs in order to pay for in-person tuition, room and board, etc, and thus have less time to participate in coursework outside of class. An online student might be retired and not providing care to any dependents, with lots of time to contribute to a larger project. 

The statements may be perfectly accurate to students at the authors' institution specifically, of course! In that case, I’d recommend rewriting the sentences to clarify that this is a representation of this institution’s students alone. Data from the institution would be helpful to back up these claims, especially information from enrollment management on students’ enrollment status / credit hours, employment status, financial status, age, etc.

Writing Style, References

The writing style is lovely. The word choice is delightfully interesting (“agentic” and “oligopoly” caught my eye, personal favorites) without straying into gatekeeping levels of complex language or terminology. The section outlining the timeline and evolution of the project has a pleasant and engaging narrative structure that is very easy to follow and fun to read.

I also love that the authors chose to break the discussion into personal reflections. I found that much more interesting to read, which is great on its own, but it also echoed some important elements of open pedagogical practices. Specifically, allowing each author to keep their personal writing styles while following a similar format in terms of focus and length mirrored open pedagogy’s emphasis on and inclusion of individual voices and perspectives over the homogenization of voice often preferred in closed textbooks. 

Application

Absolutely, this article contributes a very useful practical example. I think this will be a valuable case study to help librarians supporting open educational practices to contextualize open pedagogy, in their own minds, in terms of their own graduate course experiences. It will be especially helpful in getting more folks thinking about the benefits of open pedagogy beyond “just” avoiding disposable assignments - especially things like interweaving students’ experience gaining content knowledge with the process of developing research skills, especially collaborative research skills like peer-review, shared content creation, and the publication process.

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The layout of the project’s development, timeline, and evolution along multiple paths was very easy to follow and, I anticipate, will be easy for readers to adapt or replicate in their own circumstances. I enjoyed that the authors’ seemed to focus on that as a goal, rather than focusing on proving that their project was valuable via quantitative impact, and I’d love to see that grow as an attitude among scholars in this research area where individual case studies are so valuable.

I think the individual reflections in the discussion were an elegant way to bring up important points (eg, the impact of open pedagogical practices on student engagement; the attraction of altruism as a motivator for students; the experience of gaining skills relevant to future work as a seamless “learning by doing” element; the gaining of a student perspective on open pedagogy and the importance of that for a future Open Education Librarian; the juggling of this additional work alongside existing workload and changing priorities for the instructor; and the impact of positioning students as published authors before graduation) without having to list them out in a heavy-handed way.

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

I find myself wavering on this a bit - I want to acknowledge that, although I personally find the discussion section’s soft mentions of various important impacts of open pedagogy insightful and engaging (as noted in the "strong points" response), I also have a strong understanding of open pedagogical practices already. I don’t know that someone relatively new to this area would pick up on those references as clearly.

I could see the article going ahead as is and being fine, but I’d also like to encourage the authors to look for the themes I found in the discussion section's reflections (and any others they’d like to emphasize) and see if there are simple ways to expand on those a bit, either in those reflections or in other places in the article. However, I don’t feel strongly enough about that to recommend it as a revision - instead, it’s just a suggestion I’d like the authors to consider

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
Highly appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
Highly sound

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

×

Scope, Objectives, Content

The proposed article is within scope for the Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education as it documents the development of a student-authored OER (open pedagogy) while providing a reflective examination of open practices in higher education.  The project, situated within a graduate-level LIS course at the University of Alberta, finds students deeply engaged with information production and distribution via the Pressbook, Contemporary Issues in Collection Management (CliCM).  

Impact of the article is illuminating as it is neither theoretical or speculative; rather, is an actualized project that includes reflective contributions from both students and faculty.  The article presents both the challenges and opportunities incumbent with undertaking an open pedagogy project--from the peer review considerations, subject knowledge determination, and copyright considerations.  The fact that CliCM was adopted as actual course material is refreshing as it was not merely a project for pure assessment. It was used in subsequent terms and students were provided an opportunity to share their experiences on a professional level.   

 

Organization

Yes, the article proceeds logically and allows the reader to familiarize herself with the overall scope of the open pedagogy project, the implementation, findings, and a reflective piece.

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

It is this reviewer's perspective that the proposed article does not necessitate a scientific research methodological approach.  It does, however, demonstrate sound reasoning and a balance of descriptive narrative with critical reflection.  As a case study of an open pedagogical project, the inferences are sound and reflections presented are grounded in the authors' experiences and perceptions.  

Evidence of review/familiarization with previous literature is present as seminal works are cited (e.g. Jhangiani, DeRosa, Wiley, etc.).  More recent studies focused on open pedagogy and its impact on students' motivation, achievement of learning goals, and overall engagement are noted.  The bibliography is current, given the submission date of the article, and well balanced.  

Writing Style, References

The writing style is clear and relevant for information literacy professional.  Grammar, punctuation, and spelling is strong thoroughout, while sentece structure is varied enough to keep a reader's interest.  

A few areas were noted for minor copyediting corrections.  

Some areas for recommended editing for conciseness/flow might include:

• While incredibily useful, the reflective section could use some tightening up to avoid repetition.  While reading some portions, I felt as if content had already been covered.  This may be the impact of having individual reflections from the authors vs. a cohesive reflection.  While a change in that structure is not needed, some light editing for conciseness would make the piece more readable and improve pacing.  
  
  


• There were a number of very long paragraphs that would benefit from some 'chunking' or breaking up to improve flow/pacing. 

References cited, as previously noted, include seminal works as well as some newer examinations of more recent studies.  

Application

A resounding 'yes' on both fronts.  

Knowledge contributions include a clear demonstration of the value of open pedagogy as a means to fill gaps where current open resources are limited.  There is also helpful discourse around the dynamics of knowledge production and the role of instructor-student trust and admitted lack of subject matter expertise.  These insights are not unfamiliar to many instructors, librarians, and open educators who work within the ever-changing field of information literacy.  Involving students provides key insight into the long-term value of student agency and voice.  

Practically, the article presents an easily replicable model for others wishing to engage in open pedagogy work.  With a discussion of scaffolding and the importance of carefully structured peer review processes, practitioners of disciplines outside of information science can extract valuable takeaways.  In addition, practical tips surrounding the use of checklists, copyright and licensing considerations, and the importance of balancing academic rigor with student autonomy are covered.  

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The article provides an actual account of implementing open pedagogy within a course.  While it provides theoretical backing, its strength is in the reflection of the authors--both faculty and students-- on both the positives and negatives of the project.  There is an authenticity brought forward in the narrative that underlines the meaniful learning and content development through project-based learning of open pedagogy work.  It is rewarding to see an article that outlines a project from beginning to end.  The 'real world impact'--course adoption, further dissemination, and student voice and agency--underscores the value of open pedagogy.  

Inclusion of student voice not only in the open pedagogy project itself, but the article, is noted.  Interweaving faculty perceptions with those of students is a valuable nod to the recipricol nature of the work. 

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

As noted, some of the reflective sections, while rich with insight, could benefit from some editing/tightening of structure.  If the authors can maintain the integrity of the individual reflections while cutting down on some of the repetition, it would strengthen the article. 

While the article is strong overall, it could be further improved with a few refinements. Some of the reflective sections, while rich in insight, are overly detailed and could benefit from tightening to maintain momentum and clarity. The manuscript is text-heavy, and the addition of visual elements—such as a timeline or table summarizing student contributions—would enhance readability and structure. Although the article engages well with open pedagogy literature, it could briefly expand its analysis to include broader institutional or systemic factors that affect the sustainability and scalability of such projects. Finally, addressing minor formatting issues (e.g., placeholder DOIs, citation inconsistencies, and paragraph length) through a light copy edit would help polish the presentation. These changes would strengthen an already compelling and well-conceived piece.

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
Highly appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
Highly sound

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

×