scope:

The scope of this terminology is external peer review¹ of journal articles. The terminology may expand to the peer review of other classes of objects (e.g., books, preprints, conference proceedings, data) at a later phase but the initial focus is on articles as the highest priority. Its successful implementation will also make it possible to effectively expand to other objects in the future.

Machine readability of the review terminology applied to journals and individual articles is a longer-term goal of this initiative, but not included in this version. The terminology does not include icons or other visual markers; these also might be included later.

The terminology is to be applied on the journal level (describing what kind of review models are used for a journal) as well as on the published article level (what kind of review did a particular article undergo), and communicated on the appropriate places and moments (e.g., Guide for Authors, Article Page).

The terminology is intended to apply to all review models. Some exceptional review models are not included as these models are fully transparent by design, and including them would make the terminology unnecessarily complex.

The scope of review (e.g., whether an article is reviewed for novelty, potential impact, rigor of methods or analysis) is not included, as these editorial approaches are not sufficiently defined and demarcated. At the same time, the scope of review should be communicated to authors and on the article page in case it clearly deviates from the standard (e.g., review on sound science, statistics).

The article acceptance decision making process (e.g., made by a single Editor-in-Chief, a panel of Editors, an Associate Editor ratified by an Editor-in-Chief) is out of scope.

The term 'blind' in 'double blind etc.' is replaced by 'anonymized' to avoid concerns about using ableist terms.

The terminology will be regularly updated and suggestions can be made.