Guidance for reviewers
The role of the reviewer is to make a recommendation on whether a candidate's submission demonstrates alignment of their practice with the at the claimed descriptor. Reviewers will initially make an individual recommendation for a claim. Where a recommendation is not clear (a consensus for Associate Fellow and Fellow; a majority for Senior Fellow), the lead reviewer will initiate a discussion amongst other allocated reviewers and confirm a final recommendation on the claim.
Level of commitment
A reviewer should be:
- a Fellow, Senior Fellow or Principal Fellow
- familiar with the NRS and its operation at the 糖心原创
- engaged with the NRS as a mentor and have observed/shadowed an NRS reviewing activity
- confident with the dimensions of the and its integration with and understanding of teaching and supporting learning
- able to describe the University’s position with regard to reward and recognition of teaching and the continuing professional development of its staff
Reviewers will normally be asked to contribute to two reviewing activities a year, with no more than six claims to review each time (depending on descriptor claimed). Reviewers will also be invited to occasional meetings to discuss their observations and experiences, contribute to moderating activities, and give feedback on the NRS and its operation.
Process for reviewing a claim
Claims are submitted to the NRS team who check for completeness (submission form; written claim or presentation or portfolio; and references as required) and schedule them for the next round of reviewing. The NRS Director will allocate claims to reviewers, along with an individual review form, a lead reviewer form, and a deadline for all responses. Reviewers independently consider the claim and indicate their initial decision, substantiating this with a justification for the decision and with feedback to the candidate. If no consensus or majority view is clear, the lead reviewer facilitates a discussion and records a final recommendation on the lead reviewer form, again with justification for the decision and with feedback to the candidate. This final recommendation is shared with the NRS Director who prepares feedback to the candidate.
Reviewing submissions
Each submission for Associate Fellow (D1) and Fellow (D2) will be reviewed by two reviewers, both of whom will be already recognised as at least FHEA. For Senior Fellow (D3) submissions, there will be three reviewers, all of whom will be already recognised as at least SFHEA.
Colleagues from the same School or Department, or who have acted as a mentor for a candidate, will not be eligible to review the submission of that candidate.
Decisions available to reviewers are:
- Accept: the submission demonstrates that the candidate’s practice aligns with the relevant descriptor of the UKPSF.
- Refer (minor): the submission does not demonstrate that the candidate’s practice aligns with the relevant descriptor of the UKPSF; however minor amendments submitted in writing may be sufficient to demonstrate alignment successfully. These minor revisions will be considered by the initial panel where one of these three outcomes, again, can be reached.
- Refer (major): the submission does not demonstrate that the candidate’s practice aligns with the relevant descriptor of the UKPSF and would require major revisions to do so. A resubmission will be required and will be considered by a new panel.
Candidates who are asked to undertake minor revisions will have their revised claim reconsidered within the initial reviewing period. Major revisions (resubmission) will be reviewed by a new panel at a subsequent reviewing opportunity.
In the case of an unsuccessful submission for Fellow (D2), reviewers may recommend recognition as Associate Fellow (D1) if the claim meets the requirements for this descriptor. Reviewers cannot recommend recognition as Fellow (D2) for an unsuccessful claim for Senior Fellow: a new claim is required.
An indicative outcome will be communicated to the candidate by the NRS Director, along with timescales for final confirmation and other reporting requirements. Recommendations from relevant reviewing periods will be collated and considered by a twice-yearly NRS Ratification Board (dates). Once outcomes are confirmed, the NRS Director will communicate again with candidates. Records of all reviewing recommendations, justification, feedback, and ratification outcomes will be recorded by the NRS Director.
Notification of Outcome
The NRS Director will communicate indicative outcomes including justification, feedback and any required revisions to candidates as soon as is practicable, normally within two weeks of the conclusion of a reviewing period. The final outcome will be notified to candidates after an NRS Ratification Board, again as soon as is practicable and normally within two weeks. Thereafter, successful candidates will be registered with Advance HE. Human Resources (for HESA data) and Heads of School will also be informed of successful candidates (with the Vice Chancellor being notified of successful Senior Fellows).
Reviewer decision forms