Review an article
A review on ARIADNE is a public, signed report with a recommendation, attached to the article for good. Anyone can review from the first day; readers then mark the reviews they find useful, and that is how reviewers earn reputation. Reviews are also what gives an article the Peer-reviewed seal.
Who can review
Section titled “Who can review”- Anyone with a wallet, except the article’s authors. The submitter and the confirmed co-authors cannot review their own article. A declared co-author who has not confirmed may review, but can then never confirm.
- One review per article and reviewer. A review cannot be edited or withdrawn. If you change your mind later, write a comment.
- In these statuses: preprint, under review, closed version and disputed. A retracted article takes no reviews.
What you need
Section titled “What you need”- A wallet connected to the network, with ALGO for the deposit and the fee (free on TestNet at the TestNet dispenser). Terms are explained in the glossary.
- A Filebase or Pinata key saved in this browser. Your review text is pinned (kept online) on IPFS, the network that stores ARIADNE’s texts, with the same key as articles; if you have none, save one on the publish page first (tab “Upload”, Where your files are pinned; see publish an article).
Write and submit a review
Section titled “Write and submit a review”- Open the article and read the version you review: the page shows its version number, and the Versions list gives every earlier one.
- Go to Reviews and find the box Write a review. It appears only when you are allowed to review.
- Write the report in the text box (“Markdown; math with $…$”).
- Choose the Recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
- Check the cost and click Pin and submit review. The app pins the text, then your wallet asks you to sign.
- The page says “Your review is on the chain; it appears here in a moment.”
The authors are notified of your review in their inbox.
The four recommendations
Section titled “The four recommendations”The recommendation is recorded on the blockchain with the review. The seal groups them in two:
| Recommendation | For the seal |
|---|---|
| accept | favourable |
| minor revision | favourable |
| major revision | unfavourable |
| reject | unfavourable |
Writing the report
Section titled “Writing the report”- The report is Markdown with LaTeX mathematics, like an article (see write the article).
- It is a single text of at most 256 KiB (262 144 bytes), with no
assets/folder: it cannot show images. An image is shown as a link. - Links to web pages work. A mention such as
@name.algois shown as a link to that person, but a review notifies nobody but the authors: to notify someone, comment. - Say what the article claims, whether the methods and data support it, and what is missing. A review needs at least 200 words to count toward the seal; see write a review that counts.
What it costs
Section titled “What it costs”The storage deposit is 0.0911 ALGO the first time in a field, then 0.0658. The difference is your own reputation record for the article’s primary field, created once (by your first review, comment or reputation claim in that field), so that useful votes can credit you. On top you pay the network fee. The app shows the exact amount before your wallet opens. See costs and deposits.
Useful votes: how reviewers earn reputation
Section titled “Useful votes: how reviewers earn reputation”Under each review, Useful shows the sum of the vote weights of those who found it useful. A reader clicks it, checks the cost and confirms.
- The reviewer receives 3 × the voter’s weight in reputation, in the article’s primary field, at once.
- A vote from an author of the article counts in the review’s total but grants the reviewer nothing.
- The voter’s weight is 1 + the square root (rounded down) of their reputation in the article’s primary field; see reputation and vote weight.
- A reviewer cannot vote for their own review, and each person votes once per review, for good.
- Useful votes are possible while the article is a preprint, under review or a closed version, not while it is disputed or retracted.
- An address gains at most 50 reputation per field per day from all sources; what a useful vote would grant beyond that is lost.
A useful vote costs a deposit of 0.0321 ALGO plus the network fee. See also comment, mention and vote.
Reply to a review
Section titled “Reply to a review”The blockchain has no replies to reviews, so a reply is a comment. Click Reply under the review: the new-comment box opens with a first line “Re: review #N by @reviewer”, which notifies the reviewer. Write your answer and send it like any comment. The article page shows that comment, with its whole thread, under the review it answers instead of among the other comments.
Authors use this to answer the points of a review; while the article is a preprint or under review they can also publish a new version.
Write a review that counts
Section titled “Write a review that counts”The Peer-reviewed seal counts only reviews that meet its rules. In short:
- know the field: reputation 10 in the article’s primary or secondary field, or a verified ORCID iD with 3 works in its area on OpenAlex;
- have no conflict of interest with any author;
- write at least 200 words;
- a favourable review does not count when an author of the article gave you a favourable review in the 2 years before.
The article’s Peer review panel says, for every review, whether it counts and, if not, why. The full rules and how to meet them are in get the Peer-reviewed seal.