IITG Review Process First Stage: Peer Review

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Excellence in Corps Operations CNCS Executive Directors Meeting September 23, 2008.
Advertisements

The Peer Review College and the application process Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Presentation to Lancaster City Council OSC 11 June 2014 Update on the Clinical Strategy for Health Services in Morecambe Bay: Better Care Together.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Robert Elliott, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Giving and Getting Access to Scholarly and Instructional Materials Associate Provost Carey Hatch SUNY Brockport October
Police Knowledge Fund – initiative between HEFCE, College of Policing and Home Office 5 March 2015 David Sweeney, HEFCE Director for Research, Education.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Welcome to Turnitin.com’s Peer Review! This tour will take you through the basics of Turnitin.com’s Peer Review. The goal of this tour is to give you.
LSP Nov 2 Agenda Announcements Reading Follow-up TERI –Update and overview –Partnerships –Task Groups.
Welcome to Turnitin.com’s Peer Review! This introductory tour will take you through our Peer Review system and explain the steps you need to get started.
A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP PGR PERIODIC REVIEW Sara Crowley
1 Proposal for Internal Research Chairs Program Robert Haché, Vice President, Research & Innovation.
Policy: SCWDC WS Training Delivery Design: Group.
Ontario Online Inter-ministerial Public Library Discussion Forum January 29, 2014 Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Strategic Policy and.
Welcome ! Richard Culatta Deputy Director Office of Educational
Forintek Canada Corp. Intranet Librarians in Action (A103) Value Added Pathfinder Barbara Holder Internet Librarian International 26/3/01 Intranet Librarians.
NC STATE UNIVERSITY Campus Systems and Calendar Systems: a self assessment Sarah Noell, ITD, Project Coordinator Harry Nicholos, ITD, Technical co-chair.
Documents posted at QRIS 2011 Program Quality Improvement Grant RFP Bidder’s Conferences February & March 2011 Wendy Valentine Director,
NIH is divided into two sections 1) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) 2) Institutes (eg., NIDDK, NCI, NHLBI) What is the difference? CSR organizes the.
School Improvement Activities Accreditation (AdvancED) Process Office of Service Quality Veda Hudge, Director Donna Boruch, Coordinator, School Improvement.
Recommendation: Accept P&T Work Group Implementation Recommendations Subject to recommended modifications.
Proposed Moratorium July 29, Special Meeting Boulder Home Rule Charter Section 9: The mayor, acting mayor, or any five council members may call.
Humanities Proposal Review Process January 24, 2014 University of Southern Mississippi Sandra George Richard Wellons.
SCWDC Policy Training Delivery Design: Individual Recommended: Read the policy prior to taking this training. It is helpful to have a copy of the.
Shared Governance In the past four years, there has been a significant, positive change in the collaborative and collegial relationship between the Provost,
President's Cabinet Responsible Area Campus Community Vice Presidents Group Strategy Study Team Vice Presidents Group w/a Strategy Specific Review Team.
Elizabeth Lord Vice Provost for Academic Personnel Winter Quarter Department Chair Forum February 24, 2006.
Advanced Writing Requirement Proposal
Documenting Your Teaching and Student Evaluations
Rio Hondo College Leadership Academy Information Session
ACCUPLACER Orientation
Training for Faculty Search Committees
Emergency Resiliency Fund (ERF)
Advancing Student and Educator Growth through Peer Feedback
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Principal Selection Process
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Request for Proposal - Best Value
Austin/Travis County HUD YHDP Bidders Conference FY2016 February 23, 2018 Presentation for Interested Parties Ending Community Homelessness Coalition.
Development of a Common Research Classification Standard
Strategic Planning at Sunnybrook
Peer Evaluation of Teammates
Improving the First Year: Campus Discussion March 30, 2009
Student Support (Re)defined: How We Can All Support Student Success
On demand orientation 24/7
Providing Customized Training on Quality Online Design and Delivery
APPA – Term 3 Breakfast Session
Q3 Academic Year (January – March 2018)
Welcome to FSU Janet Kistner VP Faculty Development & Advancement
Request for Proposal - Best Value
Middle States Update to President’s Cabinet October 8, 2018
What APS Changing to a Charter System Means for Our School
Focus 2010: Next Steps Charles W. Sorensen Chancellor UW-Stout.
Mark S. Orloff, MD Regional Councillor
Building Relations: Local Senates and Unions Roles and challenges
Emergency Resiliency Fund (ERF)
FSGP Process Step 1: Review of Scientific Merit
Rubrics for academic assessment
Sarah Lucchesi Learning Services Librarian
DELETE BEFORE PRESENTING
GOING UP FOR PROMOTION TO FULL
Graduate Assistantship Application
TCL Online Welcome to the TCL Online course demo. This brief tour will give you an overview of our learning platform and a preview of what to expect from.
Streamlining the Program Review Process
Elizabeth A. Pomfret, MD, PhD Regional Councillor
Region 8 Meeting Harvey Solomon, MD
Training for Reviewers Fall 2018
Professional Development:
Welcome to FSU Janet Kistner VP Faculty Development & Advancement
Rio Hondo College Leadership Academy Information Session
Presentation transcript:

IITG Review Process First Stage: Peer Review Managed through the online IITG system Reviewers use Likert scales to score each section Comments shared (anonymously) with applicants Second Stage: Innovative Instruction Research Council (IIRC) Review peer evaluations in rank order Discuss alignment with SUNY RFP goals Escalate to Provost with funding recommendations Final Review: SUNY Provost May accept recommendations May consult with IIRC & Staff May re-align or change recommendations based on current funding and priorities. Each project proposal is reviewed at least 4 times by peers. Peer reviewers see all the application information, identity is not stripped from the proposal – however, the reviewers are blind to each other. Reviewers are not assigned to a home institution proposal, and are expected to self-identify any conflicts with the program director. All SUNY colleagues are welcome to serve as an IITG reviewer. Just click on the “Become a Reviewer” button on the IITG site. A pool of reviewers is matched to a proposal by thematic interests, sector affiliation and reviewer expertise in order to increase the quality of the feedback. The Innovative Instruction Research Council (IIRC) is comprised by representatives from each of the research centers, and representatives from the comprehensive, community college sectors. There are also representatives from Open SUNY, the CPD and members of the SUNY Provost staff.

IITG Review Process Reviewers: SUNY Distinguished Professors, FACT2 Council and Campus Reps, SUNY Provost Staff – and You! Reviewers assigned between 5-10 proposals each Will not be assigned “home campus” proposals Required to self-identify any potential conflicts of interest 4-8 hours of time required (a couple of evenings) depending upon experience and willingness to provide feedback Peer review - March 6-26th Each project proposal is reviewed at least 3 times. The reviewers see all the application information, identity is not stripped from the proposal – however, the reviewers are blind to each other. Reviewers are randomly assigned to proposals (outside their institution) and we ask reviewers to identify and swap out reviews if they identify any potential area of conflict. You and your colleagues are welcome to serve as a reviewer. Just click on the “Become a Reviewer” button on the IITG site. We hope to build out a bigger pool of reviewers to better match thematic interests with reviewer expertise in order to increase the quality of the feedback. It is a two stage review. A peer review enables each reviewer to assign a score based on a rubric that mirrors the RFP. The scores are then ranked and escalated to the Office of the Provost for a secondary review. An Innovative Instruction Research Council has being formed as part of Open SUNY, and it is anticipated that the Provost will be ask them to assist her staff in making final IITG recommendations.

IITG Review Process Reviewers: SUNY Distinguished Professors, FACT2 Council and Campus Reps, SUNY Provost Staff – and You! IIRC and Provost Staff Review - March 26th - Apr. 16th Go to http://commons.suny.edu/iitg/ and click “Become a Reviewer” (before Feb. 14th) to participate! Benefits? Service to SUNY, a “Thank You” for your file, and greater knowledge of peer innovation across SUNY! Each project proposal is reviewed at least 3 times. The reviewers see all the application information, identity is not stripped from the proposal – however, the reviewers are blind to each other. Reviewers are randomly assigned to proposals (outside their institution) and we ask reviewers to identify and swap out reviews if they identify any potential area of conflict. You and your colleagues are welcome to serve as a reviewer. Just click on the “Become a Reviewer” button on the IITG site. We hope to build out a bigger pool of reviewers to better match thematic interests with reviewer expertise in order to increase the quality of the feedback. It is a two stage review. A peer review enables each reviewer to assign a score based on a rubric that mirrors the RFP. The scores are then ranked and escalated to the Office of the Provost for a secondary review. An Innovative Instruction Research Council has being formed as part of Open SUNY, and it is anticipated that the Provost will be ask them to assist her staff in making final IITG recommendations.