Academic Publishing Wiki

Peer review plays an important role in wiki academic publishing. The first rule for peer review at is that reviewers should always follow the rules established by individual wiki journals. If an article has been submitted to a journal for peer review, reviewers must follow the peer review rules established by that particular journal.

Technically, it is possible for an article to be peer-reviewed at without first being submitted to a wiki journal. This mode of peer review exists as an experimental option. Is it possible for peer review to function without explicit rules and control by a defined community (wiki journal)? In order to try to make this experiment a success, some restrictions are being imposed on the process (see below).

Peer review of articles not submitted to a journal[]

If you write a peer review article, you MUST make use of a peer review outline. In most cases, you should use the peer review outline that is required by the particular journal that the target article was submitted to. If you wish to peer-review an article that has not been submitted to a specific journal, you MUST use the generic Peer review article outline.

Detailed Instructions for the generic Peer review article outline[]

Note: many wiki journals have their own rules for peer review. These rules are only for articles that have not been submitted to a journal with its own rules.

  1. You must link your peer review article to the target article that you critique. Insert the title for the article being reviewed. Use the full title, not a short title.
  2. Decide if you want to use the Minor edits template.
  3. Fill in ALL the blank spaces in the Title section.
    1. If you want to allow "Minor edits", your "Leave me alone list" can start out "empty".
    2. Pay attention to the rules for how you MUST make the title of your review article.
    3. The scope of your review is either "complete" or "partial". If you can only review part of the target article, explain what part(s) you will review.
    4. Use the "notes" field for any additional information that should be associated with your review. It is wise to use the "notes" field to describe your preferred way of being contacted by members of the wiki publishing community. If you cannot be contacted during consensus building, your views might be ignored. The "notes" field is also a good place to describe any potential conflicts of interest. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest might be grounds for rejection or retraction of an article and have serious implications for your reputation.
  4. The "summary" section of your review article should include your a short summary of your critique and the following details:
    1. your ranking of the target article (positive, neutral, negative)
    2. a short statement about any required or suggested modifications
    3. a short statement about your progress towards completing your review of the target article. If you are still working on your critique, be sure to say so.
    4. if you are still waiting for additional information from others before you finalize your review, describe who you are waiting on and for what.
  5. The "critique" section of your review should contain a detailed account of your critique.
  6. Additional sections. If you have completed your critique of the target article, but need to add additional sections as replies to a rebuttal from the author of the target article or to comment on the work of other reviewers, you can do so at the bottom of your article.

See Also[]

Peer Review