<p>Despite many pedagogical benefits, peer assessment is not commonly used due to educators’ concerns about its “objectivity”. This mixed-methods study examines the quality of peer assessment in higher education and contributes to peer-assessment research by distinguishing between factual and interpretive indicators in assessment criteria. Conducted among 168 graduate students in an online course, the study focused on a task requiring students to prepare digital books. These artifacts were assessed by peers and later compared to evaluations by an expert assessor. Students also reflected on the peer-assessment process, providing qualitative insights. The findings revealed differences in assessment quality. For factual indicators, such as completeness of required content, peer assessments tended to be more generous than the expert’s evaluations. However, for interpretive indicators, such as the contribution of the book to the reader’s understanding, peer assessments were generally more critical than the expert assessor. These results suggest that, although peer assessments aligned overall with expert evaluations, reliability varied by the nature of the assessment criteria. Student reflections highlighted significant learning benefits from engaging in peer assessment. Students appreciated constructive feedback from peers, which they described as beneficial for improving their work. Many also reported using the peer-assessment criteria as a framework for analyzing the feedback they received. This internalization of the assessment process underscores the pedagogical value of peer assessment beyond task performance. The findings show that differences between peer and expert evaluations are not uniform but depend on the type of indicator assessed, offering guidance for rubric design and peer-assessment practice.</p>