 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page is an attempt to offer a simpler alternative to Wikipedia:Scientific peer review.
If you wish to have an article reviewed by an expert (or better, two experts) in the subject, simply find an appropriate expert and ask them to review the article. If they require more detail, you may wish to ask them to focus on factual accuracy and omissions. Any more general comments will no doubt be equally welcome.
Once the review has been completed, you or the reviewer can publish it on the talk page, and you can put the following template at the top of the talk page:
{{external peer review
| date = date of review submission
| org = Reviewer Name, qualification
| comment = }}
It is fine to leave the comment field blank. Examples of suitable ways to fill in the "org" field would be:
Prof. Isaac Newton, University of Heaven
Heinz Gregarious, author of "The sexy sons hypothesis"
- Check the userpages of contributors to related articles to see if one of them is an expert, but has not worked on the article. (Although what we're looking for is outside review, it would not be courteous to pass over our own experts.)
- Check a library catalogue or an online bookshop for books written on the subject, and try to contact the author.
- Search a citation directory such as Web of Science for articles on the subject, and contact one or several of the authors. (Hint: Academics generally like open-access stuff!)
Note on finding the URL
You should use a permanent link to an unvandalised version of the article. You can find this by going to the "History" tab and selecting a version, typically the current one, but for frequently edited articles, it may be safer to choose one that says "Revert", "rv" or some other variation of this theme, as these are less likely to contain vandalised passages. You can then click on the date for that version and copy the URL from your browser's navigation bar.
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page is an attempt to offer a simpler alternative to Wikipedia:Scientific peer review.
If you wish to have an article reviewed by an expert (or better, two experts) in the subject, simply find an appropriate expert and ask them to review the article. If they require more detail, you may wish to ask them to focus on factual accuracy and omissions. Any more general comments will no doubt be equally welcome.
Once the review has been completed, you or the reviewer can publish it on the talk page, and you can put the following template at the top of the talk page:
{{external peer review
| date = date of review submission
| org = Reviewer Name, qualification
| comment = }}
It is fine to leave the comment field blank. Examples of suitable ways to fill in the "org" field would be:
Prof. Isaac Newton, University of Heaven
Heinz Gregarious, author of "The sexy sons hypothesis"
- Check the userpages of contributors to related articles to see if one of them is an expert, but has not worked on the article. (Although what we're looking for is outside review, it would not be courteous to pass over our own experts.)
- Check a library catalogue or an online bookshop for books written on the subject, and try to contact the author.
- Search a citation directory such as Web of Science for articles on the subject, and contact one or several of the authors. (Hint: Academics generally like open-access stuff!)
Note on finding the URL
You should use a permanent link to an unvandalised version of the article. You can find this by going to the "History" tab and selecting a version, typically the current one, but for frequently edited articles, it may be safer to choose one that says "Revert", "rv" or some other variation of this theme, as these are less likely to contain vandalised passages. You can then click on the date for that version and copy the URL from your browser's navigation bar.