Template:Did you know nominations/Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
* ... that a recent academic study, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, highlighted the problem of predatory open access publishing?

Created by Citizenofdaworld (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 04:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Please review another nom before we go any further. Looking good though. Poeticbent  talk  07:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Poeticbent: as far as I know, QPQ is not required for newbie authors. This is User:Citizenofdaworld's first DYK. I am just a friendly nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Click on the link I added (above). Quote: "New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement"... You are not a "new nominator". Poeticbent  talk  15:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, nominators of other users' DYKs are not required to complete the QPQ requirement (Per Did you know: "New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so.")  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around, if you read carefully enough: "the nomination" meaning "your nomination" of another editor's article is exempt from this review requirement... if you're new to the game. Poeticbent  talk  21:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A QPQ is not required here. WP:DYK clearly states under Eligibility criteria, 5.: "Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations.", and goes on to say (as Ruby 2010/2013 has already noted), "New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so." As this is not a self-nomination, we need a reviewer willing to take on this nomination according to the rules as they are: no QPQ. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I agree with 's take on the QPQ policy. The article satisfies all the nomination criteria. Well written, well sourced. The hook is a bit vague, however, and the bit about "highlighting" the problem of predatory publishers seems to be Beall's take on the results, not Bohannon's. I have provided an alternative that would be acceptable. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow I missed the alternate hook that was in the comments. It is cute but doesn't add up to a grammatical sentence, so I have crossed it out. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1:... that in a recent academic study, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, a fake manuscript sent to open-access publishers was accepted by 157 and rejected by 98?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for RockMagnetist's ALT1, which I have moved down below the tick since it can't be covered by it (all hooks must be reviewed by someone other than the person who proposes them). If the there are problems enough with the original hook that it shouldn't be featured, it should be struck; if not, then is it approved or not? (Note: the struck ALT hook might be suitable for April Fool's Day, but it would have to wait almost five months to appear.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg O.k., I have struck it. I think it doesn't quite meet the factual accuracy and neutrality requirements. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks, RockMagnetist. New reviewer needed for RockMagnetist's ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 hook checks out and is approved. Montanabw (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)