This paper analyses a peer review mentoring program initiated by a science education research journal, examining how novice reviewers learn through a mentored peer review process. Using collaborative self-study and boundary crossing theory, the study explores learning experienced across four review cycles. Findings identify four themes: disagreement among reviewers, discerning quality, reviewer stance and pedagogy, and growth in expertise and confidence. The study argues that peer review mentoring supports academic enculturation and the development of autonomous and confident reviewers
Research Question
What can a novice peer reviewer learn about becoming a proficient peer reviewer through a peer-review mentorship program?
Connection to the Coaching World
The article frames peer-review mentorship as a distinct coaching process: dialogical, reflective, ongoing, and trust-based. The mentor functions as a “boundary spanner”—a guide who assists the mentee (the novice reviewer) in identifying gaps, articulating new insights, and developing confidence, professional judgment, and an independent professional stance. In doing so, the article demonstrates how the principles of coaching, mentoring, and reflective learning are applied within a distinct academic-professional context.
Significance and Innovation
The uniqueness of this research lies in its empirical focus on peer review as a learning process rather than merely a judicial mechanism. Its innovation stems from applying boundary-crossing theory to understand the training of reviewers and presenting mentorship as a space that allows for navigating uncertainty, judicial conflicts, and the psychosocial aspects of professional development. The article contributes to the understanding of journals’ and the academy’s responsibility in training the next generation of reviewers.
Research Method and Data
Collaborative self-study qualitative research:
- Participants: One mentor (an experienced editor and peer reviewer) and one mentee (a doctoral student).
- Data: Written reflections, review drafts, transcripts of recorded mentorship sessions, and email correspondence.
- Analysis: Systematic thematic analysis based on the methodology of Nowell et al. (2017).
- Context: Four review cycles conducted within a journal-sponsored mentorship program.
Main Findings
- Variance and disagreement between reviewers are inherent parts of the review process.
- Developing the ability to discern research quality requires guidance, comparison, and reflection.
- Peer review possesses a pedagogical nature, beyond its judicial function.
- Mentorship contributes to building confidence, professional authority, and a reviewer identity.
- Learning occurs through the identification of “gaps” between existing knowledge and the demands of practice.
Unified Citation
Hobbs, L., & Baltazar Vakil, J. (2025). Becoming a peer reviewer for an education research journal: Peer review mentoring as a boundary crossing experience. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 14(4), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-07-2024-0079