Colleagues,
In alignment with the University’s commitment to continuous improvement, reflective practice, and the optimisation of evaluative ecosystems, we are pleased to announce the formal introduction of the Annual Review of Reviews (ARR).
This initiative ensures that all reviews conducted across the institution are themselves subject to systematic review.
1. Rationale
Recent audits have identified that while the University produces a high volume of reviews—including:
- Performance reviews
- Course reviews
- Programme reviews
- Policy reviews
- Review reviews (pilot phase)
—there has been limited oversight of the quality of the reviewing itself.
This has led to variability in:
- Depth of reflection
- Consistency of critique
- Appropriateness of recommendations
- Confidence in the tone of evaluative language
The ARR addresses this gap by introducing a review layer above all existing review layers.
2. Scope
The ARR applies to all formal reviews completed within the previous review cycle, including but not limited to:
- Annual staff performance reviews
- Student feedback summaries
- External examiner reports
- Internal audit findings
- Reviews that concluded no further review was necessary
Each review will now be assigned a Review Integrity Score (RIS).
3. The Review Integrity Score (RIS)
The RIS is calculated based on the following criteria:
- Clarity of evaluative intent
- Consistency between findings and recommendations
- Appropriate use of constructive ambiguity
- Alignment with institutional tone guidelines
- Evidence of reflexive awareness in the act of reviewing
Scores will be categorised as:
- Exemplary Review (ER)
- Satisfactory Review (SR)
- Review Requiring Review (RRR)
- Review Requiring Immediate Re-Review (RRIRR)
Reviews falling into the latter categories will be escalated.
4. ARR Process
Where discrepancies arise between reviewers of reviews, the matter will be referred to the Adjudication Committee for Divergent Review Interpretations (ACDRI).
5. Timeframes
We recognise the importance of timely review. The ARR will therefore operate within the following indicative timeframes:
- Review of reviews initiated: within 4 weeks of review completion
- Review of review of reviews (if required): within 6–8 weeks
- Final confirmation of review status: within 10–12 weeks
Please note that these timeframes are subject to review.
6. Training Requirements
All staff involved in reviewing activities must complete the new professional development module:
“Reviewing Reviews: Principles, Practices, and Reflexive Frameworks”
This module includes:
- Recognising effective reviewing behaviours
- Identifying under-reviewed reviews
- Maintaining neutrality while evaluating evaluation
Completion will be recorded and may be reviewed as part of future reviews.
7. Key Outcomes
The ARR is expected to deliver:
- Greater confidence in institutional review processes
- Improved alignment across review outputs
- Enhanced visibility of evaluative quality
- A sustainable culture of recursive reflection
8. Closing Statement
The University recognises that reviewing is a cornerstone of academic life. By reviewing our reviews, we ensure that our commitment to evaluation remains itself rigorously evaluated.
Staff are encouraged to engage proactively with the ARR and to view it not as an additional layer, but as a necessary extension of existing layers.
Further guidance will be provided following the first cycle of review reviews.
Attachment: ARR Workflow Diagram (Version 1.0 – under review)
