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.
Sabina Alam: I agree with Andy’s comments - I was about to write pretty much the same thing here! For the signals to work, and to be widely adopted/understood I think the ‘less is more’ approach is better. For example, do we really need the P, MS and DS, if the ‘historical’ overview isn’t being provided? Also, if you’re showing that something has received either closed or open review, doesn’t ‘PR’ become redundant?I’m not sure what the solution is here, but my initial reaction is that as signals these are quite complex, and having too many badges could create more confusion
Nick Michal: PeErhaps I missed this, but are you proposing an organization to oversee the meriting/auditing of these badges, like an equivalent to COPE? Or is this a system that orgs/journals can adopt, like OSF badges?
Andy Collings: I think there needs to be discussion around the labels and definitions of the forms of peer review, before the signals are discussed. However, in general, these signals are perhaps overly complex and would probably not be intuitive to readers.