Scope, Objectives, Content

The article is definitely within scope of JOERHE; it discusses an innovative strategy to increase awareness and promote OER on a college campus through partnership with a public relations course. I think the topic is an important one for this community. Many OER programs are stretched thin, under-resourced, and/or burnt out. This strategy filled a gap and solved a problem for UTA's OER team, while also providing a meaningful learning experience for students. I can absolutely see others adopting these strategies, and the fact that the PR team made their campaigns openly licensed will make this even easier for other OER professionals to do.

Organization

The article is well structured and organized with logical and helpful section headers. I noted one area that could be slightly reordered for clarity, but it is very minor. One section I think could be helpful to add is a "Next steps/future directions," where the authors could talk about how they are continuing the work, how they plan to implement student recommendations, and/or if they plan to work with the PR Campaigns course again.

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

The reasoning is sound and there is helpful survey data included that demonstrate how a collaboration like this is effective. I think it could be helpful to include the survey instruments in the article appendices. Additionally, I think it would be great to include some qualitative reflections from the students and the instructor on how the experience went for the students and what they gained from it.

Writing Style, References

The authors included appropriate references for the topics discussed. I think it could be helpful to reference other work that discusses experiential learning and/or student collaboration with libraries. Overall, the article is very well written and draws the reader in!

Application

Absolutely! I think this offers a compelling case study that will interest not just OER professionals, but possbily other departments and teams within libraries or even student services offices on campus. 

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The article is innovative and actionable; it includes openly licensed examples, best practices, and practical recommendations that other institutions can take and apply. The data included help make the case for why a collaboration like this can be impactful.

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

I am not sure I would say it's a weakness necessarily, but one thing I suggested in my detailed comments was to expand the "Open Pedagogy" section. This section is interesting and I was very happy it was included, but it's very brief right now. I think the authors could consider including what the PR students gained from the experience, even if this was just information they learned in conversation with the students and not a formal survey. What did they learn or get out of it? Did the instructor have a helpful reflection about the experience or have suggestions? And how did the students decide to openly license their own work? Was that part of the original MOU, or did that happen organically as they became OER advocates?

Similarly, the "Student Recommendations" section could be expanded to provide more detailed explanations of their recommendations and what you decided to take on as your next steps within the OER team. What are your next steps? And do you think you'll work with the PR Campaigns team on an ongoing or periodic basis?

Finally, I think it would be really nice to acknowledge the PR students and the instructor in the article, since the authors discusses their work, including surveys, event design, social media content.

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
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

This article fits perfectly in the Innovative Practices section of this journal by its subject and approach.  

Organization

Yes, the case proceeds logically, presenting the context, roles, and activities of each party. The inclusion of the MOU is particularly useful.  

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

The authors do a good job of grounding the case in the frameworks of experiential learning and open pedagogy, but I think the “Student as Partners” framework is also applicable here and should be mentioned. 

Writing Style, References

Overall, the article was easy to follow, with a few sentences structured a bit awkwardly (for which I have suggested another phrasing). Copyediting will be needed for consistency in capitalizing and abbreviating concepts and titles. 

Application

While there are some details I would like the authors to expand upon a bit more, the case is presented clearly and serves as a roadmap for other OER teams to partner with students in the context of a course.  

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The step-by-step approach, outline of responsibilities, results, and recommendations all make this article a solid contribution to OER advocacy. I attended a webinar in May 2025 where this project was presented and I am very pleased to see it in the form of a publication.  

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

While it is not a research article, there were a few statements that I think need to be backed up with some evidence or rephrased because it is not clear how the authors came to such conclusions. See comments in the manuscript.  

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.

×