WikiJournal User Group/Peer reviewers

WikiJournal User Group
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

Peer review in the WikiJournal User Group is intended to both help authors to improve articles, as well the editorial board in deciding whether to include it in the journal. The process of finding and inviting appropriate peer reviewers for article submissions is a responsibility of the editorial board and associate editors. Articles undergoing peer review can be found at: Potential upcoming articles. All peer reviews are included with the article for transparency and can be found linked on the right hand side of the article as "Reviewer Comments".

Journal-specific peer reviewer guidelines

  WikiJournal of Medicine - reviewer criteria
Wiki.J.Med. -
12 currently in review
  WikiJournal of Science - reviewer criteria
Wiki.J.Sci. -
9 currently in review
  WikiJournal of Humanities - reviewer criteria
11 currently in review

Peer review instruction summary

Peer reviews for the WikiJournal User Group are publicly displayed for each article, on the corresponding Discussion page under a creative commons license (CC BY-SA).

1. Invited peer reviewers should be given a url link to the work to be reviewed. If not, please find it here (link to list of publications in review).
2. Peer reviewers can submit their comments via this form

WikiJournals prefer to display reviewer names along with the review, as we believe this builds trust in the review process (~65% of reviewers choose to do so). However, reviewers may remain anonymous upon request.

Peer reviews should include: A disclosure of any conflicts of interests, or state "Conflicts of interest: none declared".

Process guidelines

Comment submission

Initial peer reviews should preferably be written within 3 weeks. Comments should be constructive, include both strengths and areas for improvement, and be referenced whenever possible. The WikiJournal User Group has no strict rules on peer review structure and length, however some guidelines are below.

In addition to any peer review comments submitted via this form, reviewers may directly edit the article make the text clearer. Any direct edits that change meaning should be summarised in the submitted comments. Reviewers can also leave additional comments on the article's discussion page (entries should be signed with your name or username if you have created an account).


Reviewer comments are made available online under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA license. Reviewers that wish to pass a review request onto a colleague must check with the contacting editor beforehand.

We encourage reviewers to publicly disclose their names (approximately 70% agree to do so). This provides public recognition and credit for reviewers' work, imparts credibility to the reviewed article, and can encourage maximally insightful comments. However, reviewers may remain anonymous upon request (with their identity available only to a designated peer review coordinator and to the editorial board).


Most article submissions to the WikiJournal are open-access from the beginning, however authors may request their submission to be kept confidential. In such chases, the reviewer will be clearly informed, and are required to respect this confidentiality as per the publication ethics statement.

Peer reviewer guidelines

Research articles



  • Are methods and results described in sufficient detail?
  • Are the methods, sample sizes, outcome measures, and data analysis adequate to answer the research question?
  • Was the research properly executed?
  • Are the results credible?
  • Will the article add to existing knowledge?


  • Are conclusions adequately supported by the data?
  • Are any limitations in interpreting the results clearly discussed?
    • alternative hypotheses
    • confounding factors
    • shortcomings


  • Is the language clear and unambiguous?
  • Does the introduction summarise the relevant and up-to-date background?
  • Is the question being addressed defined?
  • Are figures fully described?
  • Does the abstract effectively summarise the work?
  • Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work while being understandable to a reader with only secondary-school background?


If relevant:

  • Did the study comply with ethical standards for any animal or human studies, and was it approved by a relevant ethics committee or institutional review board?
    • Animals:
      • Is the usage of animals justified?
      • Is the number used as small as possible and as large as necessary?
    • Humans:
      • Was participant consent gained?
      • Have risks of harm to participants been minimized and appropriate protections included?
  • Supplemental files:
    • Do these contain sufficient information?
    • Does the information match the statements made in the main manuscript?
    • Should any information be moved to the main manuscript?

Review articles



  • Is anything incorrectly stated?
  • Do the references support the statements being made?
  • Are any important recent papers missed?
  • Are any references out of date or obsolete?


  • Does it reflect current thinking in the field?
  • Is anything important missing (or cherry-picked)?
  • Are viewpoints given due weight given the existing literature?
  • Are any conclusions/perspectives/outlook/opinions/original research clearly indicated?


  • Is the language clear and unambiguous?
  • Are any diagrams misleading or incomplete?
  • Is the work written such that a knowledgable generalist can understand it?
  • Is the abstract/lead understandable to a general audience?
  • Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work while being understandable to a reader with only secondary-school background?


External, invited peer reviewers must fulfil the following criteria:

  1. Have expertise in the relevant field, and be willing to provide relevant credentials if requested. If necessary, identity may be verified via a faculty contact address, and copies of certifications may be requested (all information will be kept confidential).
  2. Be willing to disclose any potential conflicts of interest
  3. Not be editorial board members of this journal

Community review

Although external peer reviewers will be invited by the editorial board, spontaneous public comments are invited for all articles undergoing peer review, and those that are dual-published into Wikipedia. This can include content suggestions, copyediting, or fact-checking (such as checking how well cited references support the statements in the article). Such comments facilitate and supplement the formal scholarly peer review of articles. Authors are recommended to take these recommendations into account and respond if appropriate.

Comments before publication are recommended to be left on the article's Discussion page. For published articles that have been integrated into Wikipedia, it is recommended that comments for further improvement are left on the Talk page of the equivalent Wikipedia article.

Duties of peer reviewers

Potential peer reviewers should provide the peer review coordinator or corresponding editorial board member with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise. Peer reviewers should only agree to review submissions for which they have the subject expertise required to make a proper assessment, and for which they can review in a timely manner. Peer reviewers should not use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person's or organization’s advantage, nor should they use it to disadvantage or discredit others. Peer reviewers should declare all potential conflicting interests, and should seek advice from the peer review coordinator or the editorial board if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant conflict of interest. Peer reviewers should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a submission, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.

Assessment aspects

The reviews should be objective and constructive, with avoidance of hostile, libellous or derogatory personal comments.

A peer reviewer who suspects research misconduct should notify the peer review coordinator or the editorial board about this issue, and present all given evidence. Subsequently, the peer reviewer should not personally perform an investigation unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.


Peer reviewers must keep the confidentiality of works and author identities unless permission has been granted to disclose such material or information. Peer reviewers must not retain confidential works for their personal use.

Peer reviewers have the option to keep their names confidential to the public and authors by requesting such processing in the peer review submission form.

Public peer review

WikiJournal User Group uses a public peer review process. Peer reviewers' comments and author responses are published alongside the work under an open access license. The version of the work at the time of review is also indicated. Optionally, if the reviewer explicitly chooses to waive their confidentiality, their name is included on the peer review reports (open peer review).

Further reading