Structured open peer review

Open peer review of a scientific article at Wikiversity can be done by writing comments on a page with the same title as the article. Following a proposal, we display a possible structure for that page. This includes three sections called Validity, Interest and Clarity, which can be summarized as ratings and displayed using the Open peer review box template. The two sections on recommended changes may be treated as a discussion page where the authors can respond to suggestions.

For examples, see Category:reviewed articles.

Context and general comments
The article's place in the field. Who should read this article and why? Miscellaneous comments.

Validity
The article's validity assesses how confident the reviewers are of the main claims, in particular how strong the supporting arguments and evidence are. The four possible ratings are weak, substantial, strong, and compelling.


 * 1) Weak:
 * 2) * The article contradicts established results without explaining why they may be wrong or how to resolve the contradiction, or,
 * 3) * The evidence falls far short of supporting the claims, or,
 * 4) * The article is self-contradictory or otherwise erroneous, or,
 * 5) * There are good reasons for doubting the main claims.
 * 6) Substantial:
 * 7) * The main claims are supported by one nontrivial and reliable type of evidence, but,
 * 8) * It is difficult to conclusively check the correctness of the reasoning, or,
 * 9) * The main claims go beyond what the evidence would conservatively justify.
 * 10) Strong:
 * 11) * The main claims are supported by a very convincing line of reasoning, or
 * 12) * The main claims are supported by several independent lines of reasoning, or,
 * 13) * The main claims are the only plausible conclusions from the available evidence.
 * 14) Compelling:
 * 15) * The main claims are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Interest
The article's interest assesses its novelty, potential usefulness, and the breadth of the potential readership. The four possible ratings are limited, incremental, strong, and major. The vast majority of articles are expected to fall in the lowest two categories.


 * 1) Limited:
 * 2) * The article is so technical and/or specialized that it is difficult to think of potentially interested readers, or,
 * 3) * The main claims are trivial and/or obvious to specialists, or,
 * 4) * To a competent reader, reading the article would require more effort than redoing the work.
 * 5) Incremental:
 * 6) * The article has nontrivial content that is not obvious to specialists, but,
 * 7) * The main claims are not very surprising, and the methods are standard, and
 * 8) * The main results are technical and of narrow relevance.
 * 9) Strong:
 * 10) * The main claims are surprising to specialists, or,
 * 11) * The methods are new and potentially useful beyond the article's context, or,
 * 12) * The results are demonstrably relevant far beyond the article's context.
 * 13) Major:
 * 14) * The article solves an important problem, or,
 * 15) * The article claims a major discovery, or,
 * 16) * The article introduces powerful new methods.

Clarity
The article's clarity assesses its structure, presentation, and explanations. The four ratings are poor, fair, good and excellent.


 * 1) Poor:
 * 2) * The article's form makes it difficult to read, understand, and review.
 * 3) Fair:
 * 4) * The article is clear enough that a dedicated reader can generally follow it, but major improvements are possible.
 * 5) Good:
 * 6) * The article's intended audience should find it easy to read, but there is still room for minor improvements.
 * 7) Excellent:
 * 8) * Only trivial improvements are desirable, e.g. correcting typographical errors.

Recommended major changes
Including any changes that may affect the ratings.

At a glance
== Context and general comments == == Validity == == Interest == == Clarity == == Recommended major changes == == Recommended minor changes == == References ==