We present here a series of proposed icons corresponding to the definitions set out in Appendix 1 above. We show as well a conceptual notion of how these icons could be arranged so as to communicate simply and clearly to readers the process by which various scholarly objects comprising a publication had been reviewed.
The basic peer review icon is a hexagon. Used by itself it would indicate to a reader that the work had been peer reviewed, but what not disclose what elements of the work had been reviewed or how the review had been undertaken.
A proposal,
A manuscript.
A dataset.
Forms of closed review
Partially closed (“single blind”) review.
Fully closed (“double blind”) review.
Cross review in the case of a partially closed review.
Cross review in the case of a fully closed review.
Peer-to-peer review.
Forms of open review
Published review. Reviewer’s reports are openly published and signed by reviewers; they may be cited in subsequent scholarship.
Crowd review. Access to the commenting platform may be controlled, but the publisher does not choose who comments.
Managed crowd review. An open platform for reviewing the object is created, but a limited number of reviewers are commissioned by the publisher. They may or may not be identified as such to the community of reviewers.
Examples of the system in use
A manuscript with openly published reviews.
A proposal, subjected to fully closed review; a subsequent manuscript subjected to peer-to-peer review.
A manuscript subjected to fully closed cross review, with an attendant dataset subjected to partially closed cross review.
A manuscript simultaneously subjected to crowd review and partially closed review.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
