Post-publication peer review should be conducted as a constructive discussion, the aim of which is to enhance understanding of the subject and refine future work.
Reviews should:
-
Be written in good English;
-
Average around 300 words in length;
-
Outline both the strengths and the weaknesses of the article;
-
Give a flavour of to whom the paper may be of interest.
Critical but constructive feedback is encouraged. Reviewers names are published and will appear immediately. To stimulate discussion and ensure an open and transparent process, authors are encouraged to reply to their reviews and reviewers to engage with any replies from the author. Comments deemed unintelligible, inappropriate or offensive will be removed.
Reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests. Competing interests may be financial e.g. holding a patent or receiving fees from a company that may lose or gain financially from the publication of the paper, personal, religious, political or other non-financial interests.
Once an article has been reviewed, the reviewer is asked to consider the extent to which they recommend the article by selecting one of the following star-ratings:
*****
I strongly recommend this article as an important contribution to the field that should be read by everyone with an interest in the area.
****
I recommend this article as a useful contribution to the field that should be read by those with an interest in the area.
***
I recommend this article to be read by those working in the field despite having some reservations as noted in my review.
**
I have reservations about this article as noted in my review but it may be of interest to those working in the field.
*
I have serious reservations about this article but aspects may be of limited interest to those working in the particular area.
Your review should justify your decision to recommend or not recommend an article and should offer feedback to the authors.
In commenting and allocating a star-rating, reviewers of an article should take account that in addition to original research, MedEdPublish reports studies that replicate previous work, case studies, opinion pieces and studies with negative findings. The need for replication studies has been recognised in education and the fact that an article confirms results previously reported should not detract from its value and the award of a high star-rating. Similarly, an opinion piece, if the thoughts are valuable and clearly argued, could also attract a high rating. A particular element of an article, such as a useful table or figure or list of references may also merit a positive recommendation to the reader.
By recommending an article you also confirm that you have read the article and feel you have an appropriate level of expertise to review the article.