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? | 0% | 100% | 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? | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 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? | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
The manuscript presents an interesting elicitation method that allows the elicitation of the observable quantities to be accompanied by the elicitation of the uncertainty around them. Since quantile probability tuples (QPTs) are more natural to operate for humans than e.g. probability density…