We’ve recently replaced Rapid PREreviews with Structured PREreviews.
You can write a Structured PREreview now.
We’ll be updating older Rapid PREreviews like these soon.
| Question | Yes | Unsure | N/A | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are the findings novel? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the results likely to lead to future research? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the methods and statistics appropriate for the analysis? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the principal conclusions supported by the data and analysis? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript discuss limitations? | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Have the authors adequately discussed ethical concerns? | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript include new data? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the data used in the manuscript available? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Is the code used in the manuscript available? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Would you recommend this manuscript to others? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
This is a useful and timely paper. As the authors note, there have been little study of overlay journals and the contribution is novel. The identification and classification of 34 overlay journals is very useful, and the paper appears to paint an accurate picture of the state of overlay journals.…