This packet lets a second reviewer independently check the official sources and all six first-pass assessments. It evaluates public discoverability, not institutional prestige, research quality, or the private quality of services.
Reviewer declaration
Reviewer name and affiliation: __________________________________
Relevant expertise: ____________________________________________
Conflict with this institution: □ None □ Described below
Conflict note: _________________________________________________
Independence confirmed: □ Yes □ No
Public attribution consent: □ Yes □ No
First-pass summary
UT Austin offers substantial publishing, repository, copyright, and data support, but the public path is fragmented across guides.
Scholarly-communication specialists and Research Data Services cover both publication rights and research-data publishing.
Create a central researcher lifecycle hub with explicit manuscript-readiness and journal-selection steps.
Dimension review
Confirm only when the note is supported by the cited institution-owned pages. A missing public signal means it was not discoverable in the reviewed evidence, not that the service does not exist.
A researcher can find a coherent support hub, subject expertise, and a clear route to help.
Scholarly communication and research-data services are discoverable, though often through subject guides rather than one central hub.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
The institution offers practical help with searching, evidence synthesis, citations, and research discovery.
Subject specialists, research help, data discovery, and citation tools support evidence work.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Researchers can find guidance for writing, reporting, publication strategy, and preparing work for submission.
Scholarly-communication experts assist the publication process, with limited general manuscript-submission templates.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Public support covers publishing options, open access, rights, repositories, and author-cost questions.
Open access, author rights, copyright, Texas ScholarWorks, and publishing guidance are explicit.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Researchers can access data-management, reproducibility, research-integrity, and responsible-AI guidance.
Research Data Services cover management plans, curation, software, repositories, publishing data, and workshops.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Help is actionable through consultations, workshops, templates, accessible pages, and current maintenance.
Specialist consultations and workshops provide practical access.
□ Confirmed □ Corrected □ Insufficient evidence
Reviewer note: __________________________________________
Official evidence review
The official guide connects scholarly communication, open access, the institutional repository, data services, GIS, and copyright help.
Supports: Findability, Evidence, Manuscript, Publishing, Integrity and data, Access
Source resolves and is institution-owned: □ Yes □ No
Independent outcome
Outcome: □ Confirmed □ Corrected
Required note: ________________________________________________________________
Official evidence supporting any correction: _______________________________________
Reviewed on (YYYY-MM-DD): __________________