Peer Review in Education

I'm one of very few Black women that get to serve as a Reviewer for a major ML journal/conference. This is significant because one of the jobs as a peer reviewer is to state when a author may have overlooked important research in the area that their paper is seeking to improve upon/analyze/contribute to/critique. And it is here that for centuries women, POCs, openly LGBTQ+ folk and WOC, particularly Black women, have been barred from having their work recognized as truly seminal contributions to the space. What this looks like is a peer reviewer- traditionally a white male- doing a peer review on a paper discussing the importance of reducing bias in Natural Language Processing through Data Labeling, would not think to make sure "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" by Dr. Emily Bender and Dr. Timnit Gebru or "The Dataset Nutrition Label" by Sarah Holland, Ahmed Hosny, Sarah Newman, Joshua Joseph, and Kasia Chmielinski was included in the references section alongside "Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models" by researchers at Stanford University as contributions that changed the way work in that academic space was performed moving forward. But I would. This is why inclusion is necessary. Because as a Black woman with many historically excluded identities, I do not have the luxury to exclude or "miss" important contributions to the space. I can't skip the work of Dr. Safiya Noble, Dr. Joy Buolamwini, Dr. Ruha Benjamin and Dr. Cathy O'Neil to get to Dr. Geoffrey Hinton, Dr. Robert Metcalfe or Dr.Yann LeCun- I have to read all of their work. So when I'm reviewing papers and I have to consider if all of the relevant and seminal work in an area is properly addressed in an article, I can do just that without excluding, without minimizing and in a way that improves the work of the Researchers and the contributions to the space. At the same time, I can begin to highlight contributors from the folks that have been excluded and minimized for far too long.

Want to know something that the Trump anti-DEI order doesn’t prohibit? Shifting away from vague, unstructured performance evaluations. As Vernā Myers and Joan C. Williams found in their research, a more structured approach resulted on average in 50% more evidence-based and 20% more action-oriented feedback _to all groups of employees_. Doing so can address two problematic patterns they found in reviewing more than 100,000 evaluations: "First, women and people of color tend to get less constructive, and less honest, feedback than White (and, in some companies, Asian American) men. Second, White men get far fewer comments about their personalities. And when they are difficult to work with, they often get a pass — ‘that’s just him.’” To level the playing field with feedback, Myers and Williams highlighted something a manufacturing company did that had a powerful effect: Each manager listed two or three competencies they considered crucial for each person they were evaluating, along with two or three pieces of evidence justifying their ratings. Read their full op-ed at https://lnkd.in/giXxERuY — This is an excerpt from my upcoming “5 Ally Actions” newsletter. Subscribe and read the full edition at https://lnkd.in/gQiRseCb #BetterAllies #Allyship #InclusionMatters #Inclusion #Belonging #Allies 🙏

I’ve worked with enough hiring teams to know that many believe they’re evaluating candidates objectively. What I’ve seen repeatedly is that affinity bias often creeps in unnoticed. We tend to gravitate toward candidates who feel familiar—those who share our background, education, or professional experience. It may feel like a gut instinct, but it can unintentionally limit who gets through the door. In my article for The Future of Talent Acquisition and Recruitment, published by the Intelligent Enterprise Leaders Alliance, I talk about how organizations can manage this bias without overhauling their entire hiring strategy. Here are a few things that help: ✅ Use panel interviews to bring in different perspectives ✅ Stick to structured evaluation rubrics ✅ Compare each candidate to the job description, not to each other Bias can’t be eliminated entirely, but it can be interrupted. Small changes like these lead to better hiring outcomes and more inclusive teams. I’m proud to share this piece alongside other contributors in the report. Download the full study for free—link is in the comments. #InclusiveHiring #DEI #TalentAcquisition #BiasInRecruitment

Learning continues to be an imprecise science. That said, when applied by qualified teachers, the science of learning principles, rooted in cognitive psychology and evidence-based practices, seem to produce the results that school systems value. Given a school curriculum defined by a prescribed syllabus and limited instructional time, and with about 30 to 40 students in a class, teaching strategies such as explicit instruction, scaffolding, retrieval practice and cognitive load management align well with the need to prepare students for standardised assessments. These strategies have proven quite useful in helping students efficiently acquire the knowledge school systems want them to learn and apply it effectively in formal assessments. However, does the science of learning address all dimensions of education? Agree that not all students are inherently curious or motivated by self-directed inquiry. Does this mean we should completely exclude them from such learning experiences? Exploration is fundamentally how we learn in the real world. While it may not be the most effective method for helping students acquire curricular content, shouldn't children be allowed to discover their interests? And explore these areas with guidance and rigour? Shouldn't school systems encourage students to engage in open-ended inquiry, confront ambiguity, imagine possibilities, test their ideas and learn from their failures? The conflict arises when exploratory approaches are mistaken for instructional strategies to teach prescribed syllabi within strict timelines, and when their effectiveness is evaluated using standardised assessments. (Employing highly structured science-of-learning strategies in open-ended, exploratory contexts could also stifle students' autonomy and willingness to experiment.) Both approaches have distinct roles. While the science of learning might be well-suited for systematically teaching foundational knowledge and skills, exploratory reasoning and learning allow students to engage with real-world scenarios and navigate complexities (in a technology-enabled microworld or otherwise). For instance, what if we introduced one graded interdisciplinary project each year, beginning in middle school, where students could choose from a list of projects or formulate their questions independently? This project could be assessed more on the process and student reflections rather than the outcome. Could this work?

What type of review is actually needed? Narrative? Systematic? Scoping? Meta-analysis? Each type has a specific purpose. Choosing the wrong one can waste months of work. Here’s a quick breakdown to help you decide: 📍Narrative Review: Best for broad or emerging topics. Flexible but less structured. 📍Systematic Review: Used for specific research questions. Requires a rigorous method. 📍Scoping Review: Useful for mapping a large or complex field. Prioritizes breadth over depth. 📍Meta-analysis: Combines data from similar quantitative studies. Requires consistency across studies. 📍Meta-synthesis: Integrates findings from qualitative research. Ideal for theory development. 📍Integrative Review: Merges qualitative and quantitative evidence. Offers a comprehensive view. 📍Realist Review: Focuses on how and why interventions work in specific settings. 📍Rapid Review: Produces timely evidence, often for policy or urgent decisions. 📍Umbrella Review: Summarises findings from multiple existing reviews. Best for broad, well-studied topics. The right choice depends on your research question, scope, and available resources. Start with clarity to AVOID backtracking. Repost to help someone choose the right review before it's too late. ♻️

The wait is over! ISO 21001:2025 is here-  Management Systems for Educational Organizations – Requirements with Guidance for Use Published in July 2025, this revision is a major step forward in shaping quality education worldwide. As #ProjectLeader, I’m honored to have contributed to this important work. Grateful to ISO - International Organization for Standardization for the guidance and to the Bureau of Indian Standards for their trust and support. What’s new in ISO 21001:2025? 1️⃣ Expanded vocabulary – Includes updated terms like evaluation, formative and summative assessment, and learner with special needs. 2️⃣ Sustainability integration – Climate change considerations embedded in the organizational context. 3️⃣ Clearer framework – Stronger distinction between learning delivery, assessment methods, and evaluation criteria. 4️⃣ Broader stakeholder classification – As detailed in Annex C. 5️⃣ Process mapping – Core education management processes mapped to requirements (Annex E). 6️⃣ Enhanced alignment with other standards– Updated examples of alignment with European standards, especially EQAVET (Annex F). 7️⃣ Digital/hybrid learning recognition - Enhanced guidance for virtual delivery, quality assurance, and data protection. What this means for education? ✅ More inclusive and equitable learning experiences ✅ Stronger sustainability and institutional resilience ✅ Robust digital and hybrid learning models ✅ Better data protection in an AI-enabled education ecosystem A heartfelt thank you to all the members of our dedicated working group WG7, our ISO TC 232 Technical Programme Manager Sally Swingewood, Chair Bill Rivers, and Committee Manager Fei HOU. I’m truly proud of what we’ve achieved together. Looking ahead: Let’s leverage ISO 21001:2025 to inspire learner-centered, future-ready education systems across the globe. #ISO21001 #EducationStandards #QualityEducation #SustainabilityInEducation #AIInEducation #isostandards

PhD Students - In order to write good papers, you first need to understand how research papers are reviewed. Here is how you research paper is reviewed. 𝟏. 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 - 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭? - Does it address an important problem? - Is the target user of this research identified? - How other researchers and practitioners will benefit from it? 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 are these 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠? 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝟐. 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐲 - 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐧𝐞𝐰? - How different this research is from other state-of-the-art papers? - Is the novelty clearly positioned with respect to related works? - Is the gap clearly presented and justified? 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 are 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠? 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘 + 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝟑. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 - 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐲? - Is the selection of research methodology clearly justified? - Is there something that can lead to faulty results? - Is the selection of data correct and justified? - Is the design of the case study correct? - Is the choice of the experimental setup correct and justified? 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 are 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠? 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 𝟒. 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 - 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡? - Is sufficient information provided for other researchers to verify the claimed contributions? - Is enough information provided so that other researchers can replicate the reported findings? - Are the study design steps clearly defined to replicate the findings? 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 are 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠? 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 + 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝟓. 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 - 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐲? - Is this paper well-written, well-structured, and easy to understand? - Does this paper contain appropriate figures, tables, and graphs, etc? - Does every paragraph contain a key message? - Is this paper free from typo and grammar issues? 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 are 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠? 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 Anything you'd like to add? #research #phd

Why do some peer reviewers expect a manuscript to bend to their will, as though the author’s intellectual labour is merely a vessel for their own unfulfilled agenda? What begins as an invitation to refine becomes, in such cases, an imposition to conform. The reviewer ceases to be a dialogical interlocutor and assumes the role of a gatekeeper, one who dictates not just how something should be said, but what should be said. This is where the process becomes oppressive. When critique is no longer about deepening the author’s voice but about replacing it, we encounter a form of epistemic violence, a quiet erasure of intention, purpose, and originality. It is not that the reviewer disagrees with the argument; it is that they attempt to re-author the text altogether, diverting it from its philosophical trajectory toward theirs. This act transforms peer review from a scholarly conversation into an instrument of intellectual colonisation. At its core, academic critique should be an ethical exercise, one that honours difference, preserves the autonomy of thought, and engages the text on its own terms. When this is lost, peer review devolves into a theatre of control rather than a space of collective knowledge-making.

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. Some reviewers offer gentle, yet unhelpful feedback. Others may be harsh but give insightful comment. Striking the right balance is key. Let me share my approach on being the 'just right' peer reviewer The are 2 parts Part 1: What to pay attention to (per section) Part 2: Scripts on how to critique politely ----------- Part 1: 📝1️⃣ Abstract: • Is it a short, clear summary of the aims, key methods, important findings, and conclusions? • Can it stand alone? • Does it contain unnecessary information? 🚪2️⃣ Introduction: Study Premise: Is it talking about something new on something old? • Does it summarize the current state of the topic? • Does it address the limitations of current state in this field? • Does it explain why this study was necessary? • Are the aims clear? 🧩3️⃣ Methods: • Study design: right to answer the question? • Population: unbiased? • Data source and collection: clearly defined? • Outcome: accurate, clinically meaningful? • Variables: well justified? • Statistical analysis: right method, sufficient power? • Study robustness: sensitivity analysis, data management. • Ethical concerns addressed? 🎯4️⃣ Results: • Are results presented clearly, accurately, and in order? • Easy to understand? • Tables make sense? • Measures of uncertainty (standard errors/P values) included? 9/16: 📈6️⃣ Figures: • Easy to understand? • Figure legends make sense? • Titles, axis clear? 🌐7️⃣ Discussion: The interpretation. • Did they compare the findings with current literature? • Is there a research argument? (claim + evidence) • Limitations/strengths addressed? • Future direction? 📚8️⃣ References: • Key references missing? • Do the authors cite secondary sources (narrative review papers) instead of the original paper? ------------ Part 2: 🗣️ How do you give your critique politely? Use these scripts. Interesting/useful research question, BUT weak method: - The study premise is strong, but the approach is underdeveloped." Robust research method, BUT the research question is not interesting/useful: -"The research method is robust and well thought out, but the study premise is weak." Bad writing: -"While the study/ research appears to be strong, the writing is difficult to follow. I recommend the authors work with a copyeditor to improve the flow/clarity and readability of the text" Results section do not make sense: -"The data reported in {page x/table y} should be expanded and clarified." Wrong interpretation/ wrong conclusion: -"The authors stated that {***}, but the data does not fully support this conclusion. We can only conclude that {***}. Poor Discussion section -"The authors {did not/fails to} address how their findings relate to the literature in this field." Copy this post into a word document and save it as a template. Use this every time you have to review a paper. If you are the receiver of peer review - you can also use this to decode what the reviewer is saying.😉

Each of these assessment methods brings its own lens to understanding student learning, and they shine especially when used together. Here’s a breakdown that dives a bit deeper into their purpose and power: 🧠 Pre-Assessments • What it is: Tools used before instruction to gauge prior knowledge, skills, or misconceptions. • Educator insight: Helps identify starting points for differentiation and set realistic goals for growth. • Example: A quick math quiz before a new unit reveals which students need foundational skill reinforcement. 👀 Observational Assessments • What it is: Informal monitoring of student behavior, engagement, and collaboration. • Educator insight: Uncovers social-emotional strengths, learning styles, and peer dynamics. • Example: Watching how students approach a group project can highlight leadership, empathy, or avoidance patterns. 🧩 Performance Tasks • What it is: Authentic, real-world challenges that require applying skills and concepts. • Educator insight: Shows depth of understanding, creativity, and the ability to transfer knowledge. • Example: Students design a sustainable garden using math, science, and writing demonstrating interdisciplinary growth. 🌟 Student Self-Assessments • What it is: Opportunities for students to reflect on their own learning, mindset, and effort. • Educator insight: Builds metacognition, ownership, and emotional insight into learning barriers or motivators. • Example: A weekly check-in journal where students rate their effort and note areas they’d like help with. 🔄 Formative Assessments • What it is: Ongoing “check-ins” embedded in instruction to gauge progress and adjust teaching. • Educator insight: Provides real-time data to pivot strategies before misconceptions solidify. • Example: Exit tickets or digital polls that reveal comprehension right after a lesson. These aren’t just data points they’re tools for connection, curiosity, and building bridges between where a student is and where they’re capable of going. #EmpoweredLearningJourney