European Science Editing 50: e137675, doi: 10.3897/ese.2024.e137675
Structured peer review: implementation and checklist development
Bahar Mehmani‡, Mario Malički§‡ Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands§ Stanford University, Stanford, United States of America
Academic editor: Joan Marsh © Bahar Mehmani, Mario Malički. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Citation:
Mehmani B, Malički M (2024) Structured peer review: implementation and checklist development. European Science Editing 50: e137675. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e137675 |  |
Abstract
To address the low overlap between reviewer comments and the publication recommendations they make, as well as to suggest guidance on what kind of peer review report would benefit journals and editors the most, we introduced structured peer review to Elsevier journals and analyzed its effect in our June 2024 paper: peerj.com/articles/17514/ . To further promote the implementation of the structured peer review process and help reviewers prepare thorough review reports, in this paper, we present our set of structured peer review questions in a checklist format.
Keywords
Peer review, peer review instructions, peer review quality, scholarly publishing, structured peer review