Peer Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations of Service
Peer review in accreditation is based on the fundamental assumption that quality in higher education is best served through a process that enables peers of the institution, informed by standards created and applied by professionals in higher education, to make the judgments essential to assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning.
Primary Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
HLC peer reviewers have two primary responsibilities:
- Public certification of institutional quality. Within the context and mission of the institution, peer reviewers affirm its fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation and other HLC requirements.
- Institutional improvement. Within the context and mission of the institution, peer reviewers offer consultative information intended to contribute to the quality of its academic offerings and to its improvement.
Peer Reviewer Roles
Members of the Peer Corps serve as agents of HLC in its evaluation and decision-making processes. Peer reviewers may conduct multiple types of reviews, ranging from evaluations that involve teams of reviewers visiting the institution in person to online panels evaluating institutional reports or other materials. In addition, peer reviewers may serve as members of HLC decision-making bodies. Further, they may be invited to serve as speakers, trainers and mentors for HLC programs or as members of HLC task forces and advisory teams.
Application and Eligibility to Serve
By policy, the majority of members of the Peer Corps must be full-time faculty, administrators or other personnel from HLC-accredited institutions. HLC also includes representatives of the public in its decision-making bodies and makes use of one-time peer reviewers who are not regular members of the Corps when appropriate. Review the Peer Corps Member Position Description for further details.
See Become a Peer Reviewer for more information on eligibility and applying to join HLC's Peer Corps.
Commitment
All peer reviewers have an initial appointment of two years. At the successful completion of an initial appointment, a reviewer may be reappointed to the Peer Corps for a four-year term. At the expiration of a term, a peer reviewer may be reappointed for successive four-year terms.
Service as a peer reviewer and member of HLC’s Peer Corps represents a distinct time commitment. Peer reviewers are expected to accept at least one evaluation assignment per year. Evaluations require different levels of time commitment and types of work. The following are the most common:
- Members of an evaluation visit team can expect to spend 20–30 hours preparing for a visit, two to three full days of work during the visit and 20–30 hours after the visit writing and revising portions of the team report.
- Members of a panel or a project reviewer can expect to spend 10–12 hours conducting the review. This may also involve two to three hours in phone conference and one to two hours writing and revising portions of a report.
- Members of an electronic evaluation team (such as an Open Pathway Year 4 Assurance Review) can expect to spend 40–50 hours across 4–10 weeks reviewing institutional materials and writing and revising portions of the team report.
Reviewers will receive an honorarium, plus reasonable travel expenses, for each review conducted. The honorarium varies with the type of review.
How Peer Reviewers Are Selected for Evaluations
In selecting a peer reviewer for a particular evaluation assignment, HLC staff will consider multiple factors, including but not limited to: the training the reviewer has completed; whether the reviewer has any conflicts of interest with the institution(s) being evaluated; and the reviewer’s service record, areas of expertise, and employment and education history.
Per HLC policy, HLC will assure representation on evaluation teams of individuals who are academics who have a primary responsibility in the teaching and learning process, and administrators who have a primary responsibility of providing oversight in an institution of higher education.
Please note: In general, a peer reviewer will not be permitted to conduct evaluations if they are employed at an institution seeking accreditation with HLC or at an accredited institution that is not in good standing with HLC (e.g., the institution is placed on sanction, issued a Show-Cause Order or has an adverse action taken against it by HLC).
Expectations for Reviewers
Peer review is an effective tool in self-regulation and self-improvement because reviewers manifest these qualities: professionalism, competence, objectivity and fair judgment.
Professionalism
Teams and individual peer reviewers fulfill their tasks in a professional manner.
- Preparation. Reviewers will be expected to be astute readers, absorbing as much information as possible about the institution, studying HLC and institutional documents, and identifying questions, issues, and opportunities for consultation before the visit or other review work.
- Judgments and Decisions. Reviewers will be asked to exercise their best judgment in using HLC’s requirements to evaluate an institution. Reviewers will be expected to make difficult decisions, whether positive or negative, even in the face of conflicting personal feelings or preferences.
- Protecting Confidentiality. Reviewers will be expected to hold in confidence all materials obtained and information learned as part of accreditation processes and discussions with other reviewers or HLC staff. Because the written report or feedback for accreditation events represents a judgment, reviewers will refrain from discussing the content of the evaluation with anyone other than those reviewers and HLC staff directly involved. If reviewers receive inquiries from or about the institution, they will be expected to refer them to appropriate HLC staff. Under no circumstances will reviewers discuss the details of the evaluation deliberations or try to speak for HLC on the specifics of an accreditation event.
- Valuing Collegiality and Consensus. Reviewers will be expected to be skilled in consensus decision-making and to strive for consensus in reaching decisions about an institution’s accreditation and about the evidence and reasons for their decisions.
Competence
Reviewers will be expected to have specific competencies. These include, but are not limited to, skills in the following areas: computer and information technology; interviewing, facilitation and listening; evaluative writing; team participation and consensus building; and time management and follow-through.
Reviewers will be expected to have specific aptitudes and characteristics. These characteristics allow reviewers to look for, evaluate, and document evidence of an institution’s fulfillment of HLC’s requirements. Reviewers will be expected to maintain an understanding of the traditions, values and trends of American higher education and possess the ability to identify what is appropriate for an institution in terms of its mission and in terms of good practice at similar institutions. The aptitudes of reviewers include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Appreciation and knowledge of good practice in higher education
- Fairness in exercising judgment
- Cultural sensitivity
- Calm, balanced demeanor in the face of tension or difficulty
- Reason
- Collegiality
- Open-mindedness to other ways of designing and delivering higher learning
- Ability to accept direction and feedback from other members of the team
Objectivity and Fair Judgment
Reviewers will be expected to render impartial and objective decisions on behalf of HLC. Therefore, HLC will not knowingly allow any person whose past or present activities could affect his or her ability to be impartial and objective to participate in an institutional evaluation. Reviewers are required to inform the staff of HLC of any barrier to impartiality and objectivity.
For more information on HLC's objectivity and conflict of interest policies, see Objectivity and Conflict of Interest: Information for Peer Reviewers and Institutional Actions Council Members.
Education and Training
HLC continually improves the effectiveness of the Peer Corps through enhanced education and training programs. Within the initial two-year term and prior to participation in any institutional evaluation, a peer reviewer participates in HLC training or professional development on the application of HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation, policies and the specific processes integral to HLC evaluations. Peer reviewers are expected to attend additional education and training programs as needed to fulfill and remain current in their roles.
Registration for training is free, but reviewers pay for materials, travel, and lodging expenses. The honoraria that peer reviewers receive for conducting reviews are intended to offset the costs of training. A letter is sent to the presidents of new reviewers encouraging support for participation in the role and for ongoing training.
Evaluation and Feedback
As part of its continuous improvement processes, HLC invites peer reviewers to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the evaluation process and the performance of their fellow team members. The evaluation responses are used in the term review of individual peer reviewers, in improving HLC’s education and training programs, and in evaluating the general effectiveness of HLC’s processes.