The PHRC Review Process

Quality:

We check each metric to ensure that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify the score. While we provide teams with guidance for each metric there is always an element of subjectivity and it can be really hard to know what to score a metric. The review process will help identify where the writer may have been too generous or too critical and this decision is guided by other report cards and discussion amongst the leadership team. 

Common feedback includes: 

• Your justification is excellent and this is a well written metric. 
• The evidence submitted does not match the score provided – consider rescoring this metric or adding additional evidence. 
• More detail is required to justify the given score. 

For the non-curriculum sections the reviewers will be looking to ensure the writers have included hyperlinks to make it easy for readers to access referenced resources. Evidence such as sustainability webpages, researcher profiles, divestment policies should all be hyperlinked (where publicly available.)

Formatting:

Each report needs to look the part! The provided report template aims to ensure there is minimal final formatting. Each report is checked for theme consistency, grammar, spelling and formatting mistakes. Huge amounts of work have gone into these reports so we need them to look their absolute best. The one sided summary page from each institutional report goes directly into our international summary publication so it really does need to be only one page long! 

Score calculation:

The last thing on the checklist! Have all the sections been added up correctly and the correct overall grade awarded? With 51 metrics it is easy to miscalculate so each report card is double checked to ensure the right total and grade are assigned.