Dear colleagues,
We’re seeking offers to undertake blind peer-review of the following submissions to the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (JLDHE).
If you would like to complete a review of one of the submissions, please email the designated editorial contact below (not the whole list).
If you haven’t reviewed for us before, please include a brief description of your interest in the topic, your relevant qualifications, expertise and/or experience in relation to the submission (up to 200 words). This might include your knowledge of the subject and/or your experience acting as a peer reviewer for academic papers or as an author or researcher in the field.
Please also join our register of reviewers and list your interests via http://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/user/register.
New reviewers are very welcome! We provide a developmental environment for those interested in this important community service. Why not try something new today?
| No. | Type | Title and abstract | Editorial contact |
| 1934 | Paper | From epistemic credibility to advisory authority: student perceptions of an AI meta-reviewer in peer feedback This study examined graduate students’ perceptions of AI-generated meta-reviews of their peer feedback in feedback-intensive online courses in the United States. Using a post-course survey, students evaluated the AI meta-reviewer’s perceived understanding, diagnostic value, guidance for revision, and capacity to stimulate reflection. Participants generally credited the calibrated system with a clear grasp of disciplinary concepts, rubric criteria, and task requirements, viewing its feedback as coherent, epistemically grounded, and aligned with course expectations. Ratings were more moderate for error detection and the usefulness of suggestions for planning revisions, and lowest for its ability to prompt sustained reflection on reviewing practices. Pedagogically, we propose positioning AI feedback as both model and mirror: requiring brief structured responses to AI prompts, micro-revisions of reviews before release, and criterion-linked guidance that cites textual evidence to move students from recognition to action. Limitations include self-report data, a single institutional context, and limited triangulation of reviewing behaviours. | Maggie Scott: M.R.Scott@salford.ac.uk |
| 1988 | Opinion piece | Graduate Emm…ployability: being good at two things Recent debates about the value of degrees and whether they retain their original worth are as prevalent as the ubiquity of graduates entering the labour market. A perennial problem is that, while increasing participation in higher education helps with intellectual development, the increasing competition for graduate roles triggers a review of what is meant by graduate employability. This opinion piece highlights the tensions between meeting current labour market demands and recognising the long-term intellectual development of a civilised society. Universities and their graduates help shape the future; to best prepare them, universities must cultivate technical competence and adaptability. | Vic Boyd: Victoria.Boyd@cityofglasgowcollege.ac.uk |
N.B. it is essential to be respectful of the writers of submissions to our journal, especially when they are at the draft stages. Please do not comment publicly on the list or elsewhere on any aspect of the paper titles or abstracts above.
We look forward to hearing from you!
With warm wishes on behalf of the Editorial Board,
Chad
Dr Chad McDonald
Managing Editor, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education