The internal peer assessor: Role and responsibilities

The Faculty Management and Tech MBU has clarified

Over two meetings in 2025 and with the involvement of the local advisory committees in the departments, the Tech Public Sector Consultancy Committee (Tech MBU) has discussed and formulated a description of the internal peer assessor's role and responsibility in the science-based advisory. It is MBU's opinion that the description of the role and responsibility of the peer assessor is a clarification of precisely this, not an extension. However, there may be differences in daily practice, and the clarification may therefore be experienced as extra work for some.

The description was adopted by the Faculty Management for MBU's implementation at the faculty management's meeting on 19 February 2026.

Purpose of internal peer assessment

The internal peer assessment must ensure high academic quality in the product, minimise professional errors and ensure that AU delivers consistent and clearly academically justified advice across tasks and over time. The internal peer assessment is the department's academic quality assurance of the content of the product. The internal peer assessment must be clear and critical, based on solid and clearly justified academic expertise.

Any professional disagreements are clarified collegially in the process, possibly with the involvement of management. Alternative professional angles are described in the product.

Internal peer assessor: Selection, obligations, disagreement

Selection of internal peer assessor (project manager's responsibility)

It is important at the start of the assignment to ensure a clear agreement on the time frame for the internal peer assessor's assignment – in addition, remember to set aside time for adjustment after internal peer assessment
The internal peer assessor may not be part of the assignment until the internal peer assessment (however, see exception below)
The internal peer assessor must have professional competencies that cover the product. It may be relevant to involve several internal peer assessors if this is necessary to cover the professional content of the entire product
If deemed necessary, a written justification may be given for the case for the selection of internal peer assessor, including a description of relevant competencies
Exception: If all relevant employees are involved in the preparation of the product, the authors can quality assure each other's work. This requires that there is a clear separation in the contributions of the different authors (chapters or sections) and that the internal peer assessor is not the author of relevant sections. This solution must be approved in writing by the head of department and the centre unit director.

The internal peer assessor must

Review the content and ensure that the product responds to the requester's order/task
Review whether the methods used are relevant and academically substantiated
Assess whether the quality level of the data generation matches the task requirements and the conclusions drawn
Review whether the discussion, conclusions, summary/summary are consistent with the results, and whether uncertainties are adequately described
Review whether tables and figures in the best possible way support the results in the product, and whether the product is supported with relevant references. In addition, assess whether the results in tables/figures are plausible and presented in a transparent way (units, uncertainties, etc.)
Suggest changes, but the author(s) decide on text adjustment. In case of professional disagreement, see below
Notify the author if the handling of the comments should be shared for review/approval (either via Appendix I or by clearly asking for this by email)
Can vouch for the product when comments on which feedback is requested have been handled satisfactorily
Appear by name in the data sheet of the final product

The internal peer assessor should NOT

The internal peer assessor should not be involved in the preparation of the product
The internal peer assessor does not have to take a deeper look at whether the underlying data analyses have been carried out correctly and whether models have been validated in accordance with procedure 6
The internal peer assessor does not have to check the data on which the product is based.
The internal peer assessor does not have to recalculate calculations that are included in the product
The internal peer assessor does not have to check whether background literature has been used correctly

In the event of disagreement between author and colleague

The author(s) and internal peer reviewer(s) initially try to resolve any disagreements themselves in a written process
In the event of professional disagreement, the centre unit is involved to mediate an academic clarification of how the disagreements in the product are taken into account
In the event of continued professional disagreement, the service coordinator/Head of Section can fulfil a mediator role in practice, so that there is a mediating colleague between the author and the internal peer assessor
The head of department may, if necessary, choose to limit the answer to a specific framing/framework and cut through so that the product becomes operational for the decision-maker
In case of disagreement regarding consistency and basis for agreement: The centre unit mediates – proposes/determines the solution

Internal peer assessor: Detailed description

1. The role and responsibilities of the internal peer assessor

"Can vouch for" means: When the internal peer assessor accepts the product, including feedback, if any, from the author (if the request for feedback is indicated[1]), the internal peer assessor declares that:

The methods used, including visible choices of statistical methods in the product, are relevant and scientifically substantiated.
Discussion, conclusions, summary/summary are consistent with the results
Tables/figures and reference list are correct and complete

Limits of the role:

The internal peer assessment is based solely on the product
The internal peer assessor is not a co-author and not the project manager. Too early/extensive involvement can make the internal peer assessor disqualified (slips towards co-authorship).
The internal peer assessor does not consider whether the underlying data analyses have been carried out correctly and whether models have been validated in accordance with procedure 6, including correct archiving of model code/data, where relevant. This takes place before quality assurance as part of the task solution and is not part of the internal peer assessment.
The internal peer assessor does not have to verify the use of background literature
The internal peer assessor may propose changes, but the author(s) decide on text adjustments, possibly in dialogue with the internal peer assessor
In case of disagreement, the "editor" function/mediation is activated, see section 3.

2. Selection of internal peer assessor(s): Internal/external, arm's length, resources

Starting point: Internal peer assessment is faster, with contextual knowledge.
External internal peer assessment is an option, but provides great resource commitment and process extension, and is especially used when all relevant employees have been involved, for large/English reports, or when arm's length is challenged.
Arm's length: If the environments are too close (same school/approach), consider another internal unit or external internal peer assessment
More internal peer assessors are not a requirement but may be necessary for complex/larger products (also remedies "all the strong ones are already co-authors").
Junior vs. senior: Avoid unequal power relations by appointing additional internal peer assessors or using the "editor", cf. section 3, function as a buffer.

3. The "editor" function – without inventing new structures

Decision and escalation path

Author(s) ⇄ internal peer assessor(s) try to resolve any disagreements
In the event of academic disagreement, the service coordinator/Head of Section can fill a mediator role in practice, so that there is a mediating colleague between the author and the internal peer assessor
If necessary, the head of department can lay out a specific framing/framework and cut through so that the product becomes useful for the decision-maker.
In case of disagreement regarding consistency and basis for agreement: The centre unit mediates – proposes/establishes solutions on how different academic angles are described and reported in the product.

4. Transparency

It must be stated in the product (data sheet) who has been in charge of internal peer assessment in the department (or externally) and the centre unit's quality assurance – mentioning names ensures transparency.
Filing and access to documents: Please note that both drafts, drafts with comments and handling notes are filed and may be subject to access to documents – as always, write professionally and objectively.

5. Planning, deadlines and possible feedback

Plan early in the project plan (including the centre unit's quality assurance) and agree on deadlines between the project manager and the internal peer assessor well in advance.
Only quality-assured (internal peer assessment + centre unit) drafts are shared externally; if you exceptionally consult the requester/stakeholders before internal peer assessment, it requires managerial approval, and the document must be clearly marked as not quality assured.
Time + feedback: The internal peer assessor must always receive feedback on how comments have been handled if the internal peer assessor asks for it (cf. Procedure 7), by stating the desired feedback in the internal peer assessment form (see also point 1: The role and responsibilities of the internal peer assessor)

[1] By ticking the column 'Specify if feedback is desired' in the internal peer assessment form, the internal peer assessor indicates that the internal peer assessor wants to see how the comment in the product has been handled by the author before final delivery.

Revised 30.04.2026

Heidi Søndergaard