User:Peter Damian/Peer review

There is a description here of the editorial process. The structure of their editorial board is here. All peer review processes look pretty much alike, however. Stuff like:
 * The review should be critical and objective
 * Check for plagiarism.
 * Does the article adhere to the project's standards?
 * Does it adhere to style guidelines, in terms of structure, length etc.
 * Content – no original research
 * Is it appropriate for target audience? E.g. Would the article be of interest to readers?
 * Does the summary reflect the contents of the article?
 * All significant claims adequately sourced?
 * Recommendations – reject, accept with minor changes, accept with major changes, accept as seen