Skip to main content

Peer Review SOP

Peer Review SOP​

This SOP standardizes external and internal review of learning modules for factual accuracy, bias control, instructional quality, and safety.

1. Scope​

Apply to:

  • New modules with non-trivial scientific claims
  • Shadowwork or emotionally intense practices
  • Controversial topics requiring perspective synthesis
  • Performance-based assessments with high-stakes interpretation

2. Roles​

  • Author: drafts module and evidence log.
  • Method Reviewer: checks claim-method fit and evidence quality.
  • Instruction Reviewer: checks learning design and cognitive load.
  • Safety Reviewer: checks contraindications, consent, escalation language.
  • Editor: resolves style and consistency.
  • Approver: final decision owner.

3. Review Inputs​

Required package:

  • Module draft
  • AQAL competency mapping
  • Evidence log and citation table
  • Assessment rubric draft
  • Accessibility and safety notes

4. Review Rounds​

Round 1: Technical and Evidence Review​

  • Verify each claim against source.
  • Mark causality, uncertainty, and generalization boundaries.
  • Assign evidence tiers.

Round 2: Instructional and Assessment Review​

  • Validate alignment of objectives, activities, and assessments.
  • Check CLT and multimedia constraints.
  • Ensure retrieval loop and spaced practice plan.

Round 3: Safety and Equity Review​

  • Validate consent language and stop rules.
  • Validate inclusive language and stereotype-threat mitigations.
  • Validate netiquette and community safeguards.

5. Decision Outcomes​

  • Approve
  • Approve with required edits
  • Major revision required
  • Reject and archive

Acceptance thresholds​

A module may be published only when all of the following conditions are met:

ConditionThreshold
Critical findingsZero unresolved critical findings
Major findingsZero unresolved major findings; all required edits confirmed closed
Minor findingsAddressed or explicitly accepted by Approver with rationale
Safety sign-offSafety Reviewer sign-off required for any Tier 2+ or emotionally intensive content
Evidence qualityNo claim published below its assigned evidence tier without an explicit caveat
DissentAll dissenting notes recorded in the decision log; Approver acknowledgment documented

6. Severity Scale​

  • Critical: risk of harm, factual inversion, unethical instruction.
  • Major: significant validity or bias concern.
  • Minor: clarity, style, or low-impact inconsistency.

Critical and major findings must be resolved before publication.

7. Decision Log and Dissent Capture​

Structured decision log​

Complete one entry per review round. Store the completed log alongside the module revision history.

## Decision Log Entry

- **Module ID**:
- **Review round** (1 / 2 / 3):
- **Review date**:
- **Reviewer name and role**:

### Findings

| Finding ID | Severity (Critical / Major / Minor) | Description | Location in module |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### Decision

- [ ] Approve
- [ ] Approve with required edits
- [ ] Major revision required
- [ ] Reject and archive

**Rationale**:

### Required edits (if applicable)

| Edit ID | Required change | Assigned to | Due date | Closed date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### Dissent record

| Dissenting reviewer | Role | Dissent summary | Approver response |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### Approver sign-off

- **Approver name**:
- **Sign-off date**:
- **Conditions or caveats** (e.g., time-limited approval, prerequisites before next review, required monitoring steps, or specific items deferred for follow-up):

Dissent and dispute handling​

  • Record all dissenting views in the dissent record table above.
  • If reviewers cannot reach consensus after one revision cycle, escalate to the Approver and, for safety-sensitive content, to the Safety Board.
  • Retain all timestamped versions of the decision log.
  • Resolved and unresolved disputes are both archived; unresolved disputes trigger the escalation policy in the Evidence-Vetting Checklist.

8. Service-Level Targets​

  • Initial response: 3 business days
  • Full review cycle: 10 business days
  • Urgent safety revisions: 48 hours

9. Required Outputs​

  • Consolidated review report
  • Completed decision log (one entry per review round, using the template in Section 7)
  • Dissent record (if applicable)
  • Updated module revision history
  • Publication readiness checklist