Handling an e-mail review

[Melanie Stefan]

Hi all,

I received a review for the Lysine article as comments on a docx file. The reviewer instructions specify that reviews can be e-mailed, but I am not sure what to do with a review that has been e-mailed to me. Do I just copy all the comments onto the "Peer Review" page linked to the article on the Wiki? This seems like the straight-forward thing to do, but I wanted to double-check.

Also, the reviewer has left it for us to decide on whether or not the review should be anonymous. (Those are literally his words: "My review need not be anonymous- you decide.") Is there a default/standard in such cases? I would tend towards openness, in the general interest of open research, and also because of credit to the reviewer. What do you think?

Many thanks for your help,

Melanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	RE: Invitation to review: WikiJournal of Science
Date:	Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:06:51 +0000
From:	Thomas Leustek <leu...@sebs.rutgers.edu>
To:	Melanie Stefan <melanie...@ed.ac.uk>

Dear Melanie,

 

Enclosed is my review. It was a fun, although somewhat unusual. The reason is that typically in peer-review, the reviewer comments on the merits and problems with the work. In this case the review seems more collaborative and I began by editing the text. But then, later in the paper, I realized that I should probably not assume that the authors would want to incorporate my suggestions. After all, I am not a co-author.  I simply made suggestions using the comments function of MSWord.

 

Please let me know what you think of my review and if there is anything more that I can help with.

 

Regards,

Tom Leustek

Associate Dean for Academic Administration

Professor, Department of Plant Biology

908-451-3266

 

From: Melanie Stefan [mailto:melanie...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:26 PM
To: Thomas Leustek <leu...@sebs.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Invitation to review: WikiJournal of Science

 

Hi Tom,

Please find a docx file containing the paper and a cover sheet for peer review attached. Feel free to add your comments to this; I can then upload your peer review to the Wiki when it's done.

Best wishes,

Melanie

 

On 13/02/18 17:33, Thomas Leustek wrote:

Hi Melanie,

 

I would prefer to have the article in an editable format like MicorsoftWord. I can’t make the online editing process work for me.

 

Regards,

Tom Leustek

Associate Dean for Academic Administration

Professor, Department of Plant Biology

908-451-3266

 

From: Melanie Stefan [mailto:melanie...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 1:44 PM
To: Thomas Leustek <leu...@sebs.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Invitation to review: WikiJournal of Science

 

Dear Tom,
Many thanks for your prompt reply and for agreeing to perform this needed peer review. Let me know if you prefer to have it in a different format.

In your peer review, please include at least the following:

• The title of the work that is peer reviewed
• Date of the peer review
• A disclosure of conflicts of interests, or simply state "none declared".
• Since peer reviews for Wiki.J.Sci are public, please include the wording "This text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License" at the bottom.

Both anonymous and non-anonymous reviews are permitted. We recommend that comments are constructive, and include both strengths and areas for improvement, and be referenced whenever possible. Otherwise, WikiJournal of Science has no strict rules regarding the structure and length of a peer review, but guidelines can be found at: wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Peer_reviewers

Please don’t hesitate to ask me if you have any questions.
Melanie

On behalf of the WikiJournal of Science editorial board

On 12/02/18 18:40, Thomas Leustek wrote:

Sure. This might interesting to do.

 

Regards,

Tom Leustek

Associate Dean for Academic Administration

Professor, Department of Plant Biology

908-451-3266

 

From: Melanie Stefan [mailto:melanie...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:37 PM
To: leu...@aesop.rutgers.edu
Subject: Fwd: Invitation to review: WikiJournal of Science

 

Dear Dr. Leustek,

I would like to ask if your circumstances have changed for availability to peer review the submitted article on Lysine Biosynthesis at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Lysine:_Biosynthesis,_Catabolism_and_Roles

We are keen to have such a highly accessed scientific resource accurately peer reviewed.

Thank you again,

Melanie Stefan

On behalf of the WikiJournal of Science editorial board

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Invitation to review: WikiJournal of Science
Date:	Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:39:08 +0000
From:	Melanie Stefan <melanie...@ed.ac.uk>
To:	leu...@aesop.rutgers.edu

 

Dear Dr. Leustek,

I am an editor of WikiJournal of Science, a Wikipedia-integrated, open access journal with no publication fees. I am writing to request if you would be a peer reviewer for a recently submitted article (located at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Lysine:_Biosynthesis,_Catabolism_and_Roles):

Lysine: Biosynthesis, Catabolism and Roles

This article is adapted from Wikipedia's article on the same topic. If accepted for publication, it will be published in the journal, and any amendments will be used to correct the Wikipedia page (used extensively by students, teachers and researchers). These articles gain high exposure (>100,000 reads per year), so ensuring their accuracy through expert peer review is extremely important.

Our peer review guidelines can be found at: wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Peer_reviewers.

• You may review anonymously or choose to reveal your name
• Peer reviews for accepted articles are public
• Since the review is quite broad, you may review a subsection of it so long as you clearly indicated which sections were reviewed

If you are able to review the article on this occasion, please let us know at your earliest convenience. We aim to complete peer review for articles within one month (8 March 2018). 

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions,

Melanie Stefan

On behalf of the WikiJournal of Science editorial board 

More information about the journal can be found at:

en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/About

-- 

Melanie I Stefan, PhD

Edinburgh-Zhejiang Lecturer

University of Edinburgh

Edinburgh, UK, EH8 9XD

http://melaniestefan.net

-- 

Melanie I Stefan, PhD

Edinburgh-Zhejiang Lecturer

University of Edinburgh

Edinburgh, UK, EH8 9XD

http://melaniestefan.net

-- 

Melanie I Stefan, PhD

Edinburgh-Zhejiang Lecturer

University of Edinburgh

Edinburgh, UK, EH8 9XD

http://melaniestefan.net

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

I'd copy and paste the review. Regarding anonymity, dropping double blind review shod have a purpose. For instance, will it make the article better? Is there a need for it? Imho.

Dj

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiJSci" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WikiJSci+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Wiki...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/WikiJSci.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/WikiJSci/95281e09-e86c-d2d4-1fb3-a82143de299a%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiJSci" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WikiJSci+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to Wiki...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/WikiJSci.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/WikiJSci/95281e09-e86c-d2d4-1fb3-a82143de299a%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sylvain Ribault]

Hello Melanie,

It would be difficult to reformat this review without losing information, because of its format as a commented article. Why not just attach the docx file to the article's talk page? I am not sure how to do this in practice. But the example of this review shows that we need to be able to attach such files.

I agree with you that the default should be openness, for the reasons that you give. In addition, having known researchers be publicly associated with the journal would be good.

Best,

Sylvain

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiJSci" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to WikiJSci+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Thomas Shafee]

Hi Melanie,

I agree that if the author permits openness as an option, then we should preference including their name.

Pdfs can be attached as part of the review (example). If you save the docx as a pdf ("Save as" in MSword), it can then be uploaded to wikiversity, or to commons. You can then paste something like the following on the Lysine article review page:

{{review

 |pdf      =Peer_review_1_for_Lysine.pdf

 |reviewer =Tom Leustek

 |version  =https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Lysine:_Biosynthesis,_Catabolism_and_Roles&oldid=1804945

 |date     =2018-02-15

 |text     =The reviewer submits suggested edits in the attached PDF

}}

Let me know if there are any other bits of assistance I can give.

All the best,

Thomas 

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/WikiJSci/25aed31d-ca8b-0649-42f5-a75c3a1758c8%40ipht.fr.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science & Hexima Ltd | Postdoctoral research fellow

Profiles at ResearchGate | LinkedIn | GoogleScholar | AltMetric | Wikipedia