Structured PREreview of Comments on ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 - Standard Terminology for Peer Review

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The initial section after the abstract titled 'Background' clearly and concisely outlines the history of the development of standard terminology for peer review models from the 2019 version 2.0 to the current version 3.0, which is the focus of this commentary. It states the four categories developed in version 3.0 and then states the objective of the commentary which is to explore 3 of the categories, highlight improvements ("gaps") and propose one additional one by recourse to examples of open peer review practice from various disciplines.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

This is a commentary piece and as such does not require a methodology section per se but the examples collected to support the author's position are clearly presented in table format, the number and variety of examples are sufficient for a commentary, and the author uses them to great effect to show the nuance and complexity of journal practice, highlighting the need for ongoing revision and improvement of the standards.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The authors considers 3 aspects of the current standards that could be improved and uses an appropriate number of examples of practice to demonstrate exactly why they are insufficient and exactly how they can be improved - for reviewer transparency by including mandatory and non mandatory visibility by type of reviewer - for reviewer interaction by broadening the category to include non invited public participation - for reviewer information to include the publication of comments. These recommendations are realistic and reflect current practices in open peer review. Five examples of open peer review practice are provided to demonstrate the need to broaden these categories - for a commentary more examples are probably not required but if more examples were sought they would only strengthen the author's position and show even more variety and complexity in journal practice.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

Using a table format to present the examples employed allows for quick and clear understanding and comparison. Further visualisation is not required for this commentary piece.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The need for expansion of categories is made clear from the examples presented, yet the author is also generous in their assessment of the merits of the standards initiative. A couple of the sentences could be proof read as there is awkward phrasing that could result from translation or could be typos such as "a great initiative to support journals and peer review, but not apply to all review models and it is intended" but these are very few and the author writes very clearly and logically and the commentary is very easy to understand. The author concludes with clear realistic recommendations to journals to provide simple explanations of their review process, including visual representations, and to elicit feedback to improve this portion of their websites. In terms of the standards themselves the author suggests constant revision open to public discussion to improve the accuracy of terminology to reflect the evolving practice.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

At a time when scholarly publishing practice is innovating and experimenting with new models including peer review, tools to help with consistency and transparency such as the standards are very important and making these tools as effective and accurate as possible is important work. Constantly interrogating such tools to ensure they are accurately reflecting evolving practice and are inclusionary of all forms of new and emerging practice is equally essential. As such this critique is an example of the work required at the coal face to enable the evolution of scholarly publishing

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

As mentioned earlier there are one or two sentences that require proofreading for grammar to improve clarity but the vast majority of the prose is crystal clear. I would remove the justified format as it does not work in a couple of places with long urls

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Yes it is clear, concise, makes well substantiated points and speaks to an important topic.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

Competing interests

Possibly. The author is one of a number of guest editors for a special issue for a journal I am editor for. In that regards we have had work related contact with regards to the journal.