User:Anthonyhcole/Talking points/Thoughts

Journal peer-review typically involves anonymous reviewers assessing the validity of the methods described In a paper, and an editor assessing the paper's "fit" for the journal. The veracity of what is said in a reviewed article is vouched for by the authors, whose reputations and, ultimately, careers can be seriously harmed if the work is later found to contain falsehoods.

At Wikipedia, we need something else. We need reviewers to assess the comprehensiveness, neutrality, accuracy and currency of the article, and, since our model allows for anonymous authorship, we need the reviewers to shoulder the burden of accountability. The reviewers who pass an article for publication should be very publicly named, and any potential conflicts of interest should be publicly declared.

It should be clear to the reader which parts of an article (if not all) each reviewer is vouching for, and at least one reviewer should assume responsibility for the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article as a whole.

An ideal reviewer would have written recent widely-used textbooks or chapters or highly-cited general reviews on the topic they are reviewing.

The BMJ editor who makes the final decision on pass/fail should have a good grasp of our policies and guidelines - or make the decision in close collaboration with someone who does.