Frequency and timing of review
SAGE endeavours to build a large pool with multiple reviewers for each area of expertise to avoid overburdening individual reviewers.
When inviting reviewers to review applications, SAGE will aim to provide at least 4 weeks’ notice. Reviewers can decline to participate if the timing does not suit or there are conflicts of interest.
Institutions can only submit Athena Swan Award applications in March each year. If you are interested in becoming an Athena Swan Award reviewer, you will need to be available from mid-April to late July. Athena Swan Award reviewers will usually be asked to review 3 to 5 applications in one round. Each Athena Swan Award application requires approximately 5 hours to review, including the assessment meeting, making a total commitment of approximately 15–20 hours in an assessment round.
Institutions may submit Cygnet Award applications on any topic, at any time. Therefore, it is difficult to say when and how often a Cygnet reviewer might be called upon. We estimate that individuals will review no more than 4 Cygnet applications a year. Each Cygnet application requires approximately 2–4 hours to review, including the assessment meeting. If the group agrees that more information is required to assess the application, reviewers may have to participate in a second phase of assessment lasting 2–3 hours within 6 months of the first assessment. Reviewers can withdraw from the pool or update their details at any time by contacting the SAGE team.
Training sessions
When you are first accepted as a reviewer, you are required to complete reviewer training, which takes around 5 hours, plus an additional 1-hour session for Chairs. The training is a combination of self-paced online modules and live workshops/meetings, which take place online.
Existing reviewers undergo regular refresher training.
Workload recognition
All reviewers are participating on a voluntary basis. SAGE does not determine workload allocation for reviewers. However, we strongly encourage organisations to recognise and reward their members’ contributions to SAGE peer review as part of their workload allocation process, given the importance of this work in assuring the quality of gender equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives across the sector.