Become an ICAPHE Reviewer
ICAPHE is always looking for interest from academics, public health professionals, quality assurance specialists and students to join our pool of reviewers.
Help shape the future of public health education and training by contributing to the accreditation of schools, programmes and CPD courses. Full training is provided and participation offers a unique opportunity to learn how other institutions work, engage with international peers and support excellence in education.
Reviewer Roles
Reviewers are central to the integrity and impact of ICAPHE’s accreditation work. Whether reviewing a school, academic programme or CPD course, each reviewer helps ensure the process is fair, well-evidenced and aligned with clearly defined standards. Panels are carefully composed to bring together relevant experience and perspectives, including academics, practitioners and students. For CPD courses, the panel size is determined by course length, with moderation introduced where needed to support balanced and consistent outcomes.
All reviewers are active participants from the outset. This involves reviewing documentation, taking part in planning discussions, interviewing key stakeholders and contributing to the final report.
To ensure a confident and consistent approach, all reviewers undertake dedicated training, delivered online and on-site. This ensures a shared level of understanding of the framework in use and provides practical guidance, helping reviewers feel well-prepared and aligned as a team.
Taking on the role of reviewer is both a responsibility and a valuable opportunity for professional contribution and growth. It offers the chance to contribute to the development of high-quality public health education, while (bi-directional) learning from diverse settings and engaging with peers committed to improvement and excellence.
Taking on the role of reviewer is both a responsibility and a valuable voluntary professional opportunity. It offers a meaningful way to contribute to the advancement of high-quality public health education, while also gaining insight from a wide range of contexts. Reviewers benefit from the exchange of ideas, the chance to reflect on different approaches and the opportunity to work alongside peers from diverse settings.
Eligibility Criteria for Reviewers
We welcome applications from a range of professionals and recent graduates who meet the following profiles:
Academics
Applicants should be experienced academics in public health or a related field. Suitable roles may include dean, director, associate director, department head, senior faculty member or programme lead. A doctoral degree is generally required, along with written, verbal and analytical abilities.
Public Health Practitioners
Applicants should be working within public health departments, non-profit organisations or health-related entities, preferably with at least ten years’ experience in the field. A minimum of a master’s degree is required. Strong communication and analytical skills are essential.
Professionals in Accreditation and Quality Assurance
We also welcome individuals employed at higher education institutions or national or international accreditation bodies. Applicants should be well-versed in peer review processes and quality frameworks. Experience in the health domain is preferred. Strong written, verbal and analytical skills are necessary.
Students and Recent Graduates
Present students and recent graduates in public health (within the last two years) are encouraged to apply. Student reviewers will participate as full members of the Accreditation Review Panel and gain valuable insight into the accreditation process.
Training is provided and ongoing support will always be available.
Review Processes
Following the submission of the applicant’s Self-Evaluation Report, an assigned Accreditation Review Panel (consisting of reviewers) carries out a preliminary analysis to address any immediate queries before initiating a formal review. Reviews take one of three forms:
On-Site Reviews
On-site visits are typically used during the initial accreditation processes for schools and Programmes. A panel of experts, including a review coordinator, visits the School or Programme to carry out a comprehensive evaluation. The Accreditation Manual provides sample schedules for these visits.
Online Reviews
Suitable for Schools or Programmes seeking re-accreditation, online programmes and CPD courses over 40 hours in length. These reviews may follow a set schedule or be adapted across multiple sessions. Full details can be found in the Accreditation Manual.
Hybrid Reviews
Hybrid reviews combine on-site and online elements, often used where assembling a fully on-site panel is challenging. Each participant joins individually from their own device to maintain clarity and coordination. Host institutions must assign a session coordinator and ensure stable internet and power availability.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Panel Composition
Accreditation Review Panels are multi-disciplinary and for schools and programmes include a student member and a review coordinator acting as rapporteur. One member will serve as Chair. For specialised Programmes, additional expertise will be sought. For CPD accreditation, courses lasting under 40 hours are reviewed by a single subject matter expert whereas, courses exceeding 40 hours are assessed by two reviewers to allow for a broader perspective. In cases where the reviewers’ findings differ, a third independent expert will be appointed to provide external moderation to ensure a balanced outcome. For courses over 40 hours, a short teleconference is held with key stakeholders to explore specific areas of interest. For shorter courses, reviewers may request clarifications or changes which may entail a brief online meeting if deemed necessary.
Responsibilities of the Chair
The Chair is responsible for overseeing the site visit and ensuring the review process remains structured, fair and objective. This includes confirming that all panel members are fully prepared for their roles. The Chair carefully reviews the Self-Evaluation Report and guides discussions throughout the review process. They lead preparatory meetings to clarify roles, identify key areas of focus and ensure the team is aligned. During the visit, the Chair coordinates interviews and activities, maintaining momentum and coherence across the schedule. Finally, the Chair works closely with the review coordinator to finalise the draft report, ensuring it is accurate, comprehensive and clearly reflects the panel’s findings.
Responsibilities of Panel Members
Panel members play a vital role in delivering a robust and balanced accreditation review. Each member is expected to complete ICAPHE’s Site Visitor Training if they have not already done so. Panel members are responsible for reviewing all submitted documentation, including the Self-Evaluation Report and the evaluation matrices, in preparation for the visit. They take part in pre-visit teleconferences to coordinate the approach and plan the review. During the review, panel members conduct interviews with staff, students and other stakeholders to gather insights and evidence. They also contribute to the drafting of the final report, ensuring that findings are clearly articulated and grounded in evidence.
Review Activities
All panel members take part in each stage of the review process. The work begins with preparatory meetings between panel members, providing time to discuss the documentation, raise any specific areas of interest and ensure everyone is clear and confident ahead of the forthcoming review. During the visit itself, panel members participate in an opening meeting with senior leadership, followed by structured interviews with key stakeholders. For on-site reviews, a guided tour of the institution offers insight into the learning and working environments. Panel members also examine key documents to verify alignment with accreditation criteria. Where relevant, brief observations of teaching or meetings may also be included to support the broader assessment.
Report Development and Submission
Following the review, the panel prepares a comprehensive draft report within eight weeks. Review Panel decisions are made upon the individual criteria using the five evaluation categories found below. This is finalised with a final recommendation off accreditation to the Accreditation Review consisting of either: Accreditation; Conditional Accreditation; Denial or Revocation of Accreditation. If the Accreditation Review Board has autonomy to deviate from the final recommendation but is required to provide justification. The Review Panel may also recognise areas of excellence termed as Gold Practice which will be highlighted in the final report and separate certification. Reports must be written to ensure the findings and decisions are clear, accessible and once finalised, openly available to stakeholders.
- Full Compliance: All elements satisfactorily met
- Substantial Compliance: Most elements met, with areas for improvement
- Partial Compliance: Basic requirements met, further development required
- Non-Compliance: Requirements not fulfilled
- Not Applicable: Criteria not relevant due to internal / external constraints
Code of Conduct for Reviewers
Professional Conduct: Reviewers are expected to maintain a respectful and impartial approach throughout.
Confidentiality: All materials and discussions remain confidential and may only be shared within authorised channels.
Conflict of Interest: Any potential conflicts must be disclosed to ICAPHE before accepting an assignment.