Impact and Standards
Accreditation
Helping the community trust what it finds
As our library of open statistics books and variants grows, we want a system that helps educators and learners understand the quality and context of what they’re reading. We’re building that system with the community – and we need your help to shape it.
Why accreditation matters
Open resources are powerful precisely because anyone can create and adapt them. But that same openness raises a real question: how does an educator know whether a variant they’ve found has been reviewed, and by whom?
Builds trust
A clear accreditation mark tells educators and students what standard a book has been reviewed against, and who did the reviewing.
Supports variants
When the same core content appears in many adapted forms, accreditation helps the community understand which variants have been validated and which are community drafts.
Owned by the community
We don’t want a single body controlling what counts as good. We want a system where relevant communities (e.g., statistical, regional, disciplinary) each play a role.
What accreditation could look like
We’re still designing this, but here’s the direction we’re heading. A book or variant could earn one or more marks, each from a different type of accrediting body.
- Community reviewed — e.g. peer review by educators in this platform
- ISI / IASE endorsed — e.g. professional statistical body
- Author approved — e.g. the original author has reviewed this variant
Each mark would link to a page explaining who gave it, what they reviewed, and what criteria they applied, so that trust is always traceable.
How we imagine it working
This is our current thinking — we expect it to evolve with community input.
- 01 A body expresses interest — An organisation signals it could review certain types of content
- 02 Criteria are agreed — We work with them to define what they’ll review and how
- 03 Books are submitted — Authors or variant creators request review
- 04 A mark is awarded — Visible on the book card, with a link to the review rationale
Questions we’re still working through
We’d genuinely value your perspective on any of these.
Who should be trusted to accredit?
Statistical bodies (ISI, IASE), regional education authorities, original book authors, disciplinary communities (public health, agriculture, business)? All of the above? None of the above? The answer also depends on context - a regional adaptation needs regional expertise
What should accreditation cover?
Statistical correctness? Pedagogical quality? Contextual appropriateness of datasets? Accessibility? Etc
How do we prevent accreditation becoming a bottleneck?
Books and variants should be usable before they’re accredited - the mark is additional signal, not a gate. We want the unaccredited state to be clearly visible, not hidden.
<form to Express interest or make a nomination>