Created by Shavawn Donoghue, last modified by Administrator on Apr 07, 2014

Review process

The status of a wiki page is determined by its review status.  A wiki page may be reviewed in three different ways:

  1. External peer-review
    1. individuals from outside of the wiki community will be contacted and invited to review the page
    2. externally peer-reviewed pages can be generated into a stand-alone, authored PDF
  2. Internal peer-review
    1. reviewers will be selected from within the wiki community and invited to review the page (note that Space or Content editors cannot be reviewers)
    2. typically, internal peer-review will be for pages that are not intended to be openly accessible - they are for pages that are intended to be internal, they will, however, be authored.
  3. Community review
    1. page will be open to the wiki community for comment
    2. pages that are reviewed by the wiki community are cited as being authored by "SOKI Wiki" and not with individual authors. All pages have the inclusion of contributors at the base of the page.   

Peer reviewers cannot be Content Editors (i.e. not part of Editorial team); they can be selected from the Editorial Board; they can be author nominated.

At a minimum, a page requires two reviewers.

After the page has been subjected to review (external or internal) and page authors have addressed reviewer comments, the Editorial Board can approve the creation of a stand-alone PDF document. Review processes for these pages are expected to be be similar to those of a peer-reviewed journal.

Review conditions

Any review we seek needs to be succinct, well organised, constructive and diplomatic. 

The Wiki Editorial Policy and Instructions to Authors can be accessed from our "About Us" page - these pages detail the appropriate standards and scope for content on the wiki.

Reviews are given a turn-around time of 3 weeks, and must be provided to the Editorial Board in writing (suggest similar process to Marine & Freshwater Research)

When providing the page for review, page authors will be required to provide a clear description of the purpose of their page to the Editorial Board:

  • e.g. the page contains information to be incorporated into models
  • e.g. the page contains information to provide development of a standard method for data collection

The level of detail required from the reviewer includes:

  • comment on the appropriateness of the publications cited
  • identification of any known data gaps/data biases
  • identification of any current work being undertaken but unpublished that may provide additional information
  • comment on the major strengths and weaknesses of the page
  • identification of errors, inappropriate references

Review administration

To be developed - consistent with the usual processes for review by peer-reviewed journals.

 

Citation

Page contributors: 

Last modified on: