PubSci:ReviewerGuide

PubSci runs on open, post-publication review. There is no editorial board. A paper's quality and significance are argued in public, by reviewers who sign their work. This guide explains how to become a reviewer and how to write reviews that are useful to readers, authors, and the record.

A review on PubSci is a signed, permanent, public document. It is attached to the paper's page and visible to every reader. It does not determine whether a paper is published. The paper is already published. Review determines what readers understand about it.

Because reviews are signed and permanent, they accumulate into a body of work. A reviewer with a long record of sharp, fair reviews builds a reputation that anyone can inspect. That reputation is earned in public. Anonymous reviews do not exist on PubSci; see What reviewers must not do.

To write reviews, you need a reviewer handle. Your reviewer handle is the name that appears on every review you write. It is stable, persistent, and permanent.

To register:

1. Log in at [pubsci.io] with your Pharmacopedia account. If you do not have one, create one at [pharmacopedia.wiki].
2. Navigate to Special:ReviewerRegistration and choose your handle.
3. Your handle must be 2 to 40 characters and cannot duplicate an existing handle. It may be any combination of letters, numbers, and Unicode characters.
4. Once registered, your handle cannot be changed. Choose it with that in mind.

Your reviewer handle is distinct from your pen name (used for authoring). One account can hold both.

Anyone with a Pharmacopedia account may register as a reviewer. There is no gatekeeping by credential or institutional affiliation. A strong review history is its own credential.

You may not review your own papers, papers you co-authored, or papers where you have an undisclosed conflict of interest. See Conflict of interest below.

Navigate to any published paper and click Write a review. The review form accepts wikitext markup.

A useful review addresses some or all of the following:

The central claim

What does the paper claim to show? Is the claim clearly stated? Is it supported by the evidence presented?

Methods

Are the methods appropriate for the question? Are they described in enough detail to evaluate or reproduce? Are there obvious gaps or confounds the paper does not address?

Data and analysis

Is the data presented clearly? Are the statistical analyses (where applicable) appropriate and correctly interpreted? Are figures and tables readable and accurately described in the text?

Literature context

Does the paper engage accurately with the relevant prior work? Are important precedents missing?

Significance

Is the question worth asking? Does the result advance the field, or clarify something previously unclear?

You do not need to address all of these in every review. A focused review that does two or three of these well is more useful than a superficial pass over all of them.

Reviews must be at least 200 characters. There is no maximum length.

In addition to a full review, you may attach inline annotations to specific passages in the paper. Click and highlight any text to open the annotation panel. Annotations are also signed under your reviewer handle and are public and permanent.

Use annotations for: specific errors in a sentence or formula, a passage that needs clarification, a claim that contradicts cited evidence, or a particularly strong piece of reasoning worth flagging for readers.

Reviews can be rated by other reviewers and by paper authors. Ratings feed the reviewer reputation ladder. Rate a review based on its quality as a review: accuracy, rigor, clarity, and fairness. Do not rate based on agreement with the conclusion.

Every review you write is linked to your reviewer handle and visible on your reviewer profile. Your profile shows:

• All reviews you have written, with dates and paper links
• Ratings your reviews have received
• Papers that have responded to your reviews

This record is public and permanent. It does not go away if you stop reviewing. It cannot be edited or deleted after submission. Think of each review as a publication in its own right.

Declare a conflict of interest before reviewing if any of the following apply:

• You know the author's identity (even though authors are pseudonymous, some situations make identity clear)
• You are in a direct competitive relationship with the author or their institution
• You have a financial interest in the paper's conclusions
• You have had a significant personal dispute with the author

To declare, note it at the top of your review: "Disclosure: [nature of relationship]." If the conflict is substantial enough that you cannot write a fair review, do not review the paper.

No anonymous reviews

Every review must be submitted under your registered reviewer handle. Reviews cannot be submitted anonymously. If you need to comment without your handle attached, you can open a discussion on the paper's talk page.

No coordinated reviews

Do not coordinate with others to produce aligned reviews of a single paper, either to boost or to suppress it. Each review must represent your own independent judgment.

No personal attacks

Criticize the work, not the author. Statements about the author's intelligence, character, or motives do not belong in a review. Factual statements about methodology, evidence, and logic do.

No undisclosed conflicts

See Conflict of interest above. Reviewing a paper where you have an undisclosed conflict is a violation of reviewer standards and may result in removal of your reviews.

No fabrication

Do not cite sources that do not say what you claim they say. Do not misrepresent a paper's findings in a review.

Violations that are reported and confirmed may result in flagging of the affected review and, in serious cases, suspension of reviewer privileges.

If something about the review process is unclear, or if you believe a review by another reviewer violates these standards, contact us at [content@pubsci.io].