Keywords
peer review, scholarly publishing, JATS, JATS4R, Crossref,
-
Views
-
Downloads
How to cite this article
Beck J, Funk K, Harrison M et al. Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16460.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Opinion Article
Publishing peer review materials
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2018
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.
Abstract
Corresponding authors:
Jeffrey Beck, Kathryn Funk, Melissa Harrison, Jo McEntyre
Competing interests:
Michael Evans is the Production Manager for F1000 Platforms, but was not involved in the production of this manuscript.
Grant information:
This work was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Contributions from AH and MP were supported by Europe PMC. Funding for Europe PMC is provided by 29 European-based funders of life science research: https://europepmc.org/Funders/ under Wellcome Trust grants 098321 and 108758, awarded to EMBL-EBI.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© 2018 Beck J et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Beck J, Funk K, Harrison M et al. Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16460.1)
First published: 17 Oct 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16460.1)
Latest published: 17 Oct 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16460.1)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Introduction
Peer review is the practice of subjecting a scholarly article, such as a research paper submitted to a journal, to scrutiny or review by others ('peers') who are experts in the same field. Generally, if the author of the article addresses the concerns raised during peer review to the satisfaction of an editor, the article is accepted for publication. The peer review process produces a trail of documents, which can include: different versions of the article; the reviewer reports (with or without the name of the reviewer); responses by the author to the reports; and various letters (including cover letters from the author and decision letters from the editor). It is also possible for an article to go through two or more rounds of peer review, which increases the number of documents generated.
Traditionally the documents generated during the peer review process were only ever seen by the author, the editor and the reviewers, but a small number of publishers now publish some peer review materials alongside articles. Moreover, support for this practice has been slowly gaining momentum, driven by a wish to increase transparency and provide credit for peer reviewers (Polka et al., 2018). There were 10 journals identified in the PMC corpus that archive some peer review materials. These journals take a variety of different approaches, which results in differing levels of discoverability for these materials. Additionally, some journals were identified as publishing peer review materials but not consistently archiving them in a repository.
Here we report the findings of a workshop, held at the BMA in London, UK on July 6, 2018, at which representatives from publishers, PubMed Central (PMC)/Europe PMC, and Crossref discussed the practical challenges involved in publishing peer review materials. We focus on what has to happen after a publisher decides to start publishing peer review materials, and discuss how to do this in a way that is sustainable, improves discoverability, and supports machine readability and archiving. We do not discuss the relative merits of the different approaches to peer review that have emerged over the past decade, notably the many different flavours of 'open peer review' (Ross-Hellauer, 2017), but we feel that many of our suggestions and recommendations are relevant to most if not all of these approaches.
What are peer review materials?
As mentioned above, peer review materials can include: the reviewer reports (with or without the reviewer name); responses by the author to the reports; and various letters (including cover letters from the author and decision letters from the editor). Some articles go through two or more rounds of peer review, which increases the number of documents generated. While each document is usually accompanied by a date, other metadata concerning the correspondence can be highly variable. For example, peer review reports and editors decision letters may or may not include names of reviewers or editors, or their ORCID IDs; the individual materials may or may not have DOIs. In subscription journals it is also possible for peer review materials to appear in front of or behind the paywall.
Publishers are approaching the publication of peer review materials in a number of ways. The aims of this group were not to prescribe what should be done from an editorial point of view, but to enable what is published to be found by readers and machines alike. Prior to the workshop, data were collected from each publisher attending and we found the following materials are published:
○ Peer review reports, anonymized or with report author names
○ Author responses/Rebuttals
○ Editor decision letters
Some journals also provide appeal and resubmission information (including previous versions of the article, dates, and actors involved).
In some cases publishers make peer review materials available as a single PDF with versioned reports linked to specific revisions of the article. Other publishers create separate artifacts, each with unique DOIs, and still others edit and amalgamate various reports into one narrative. The variety can be found in the meeting notes and a table filled out before the meeting (See Supplementary File 1 and Supplementary File 2).
After collecting these data, representatives from each of the identified publishers were contacted to attend a workshop in London on July 6, 2018; all but one publisher was able to attend. Further publisher representatives were invited following communication with ASAPbio – these publishers are embarking on this practice. Crossref, Europe PMC and PMC were also represented at this meeting, as downstream recipients of this content or the metadata related to it. Journal representatives expanded on the data previously collected and shared details on how they collect and publish peer review materials, how these artifacts are represented in the ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2015 Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) document standard (these principles can be applicable to other DTDs), and whether they send relevant metadata to Crossref. Crossref shared details of their schema extension to represent this form of content (https://www.crossref.org/services/content-registration/peer-reviews/). As downstream recipients of peer review materials, PMC and Europe PMC presented the perspective of archives that collaborate with journals to ensure that content is being captured in a sustainable and consistent format that fosters long-term preservation and access to the scholarly record. Understanding the goals of, workflows, and limitations on each stakeholder allowed the group to refine the scope of the discussion and its outcomes.
Peer review materials need to “stand alone”
In order to advance the transparency and recognition of peer review materials, we agreed these peer review materials need to stand alone from the main article for the purposes of, for example, credit and citation. Ideally, each content item should have its own DOI (as per the recently enhanced Crossref schema). We identified three levels of achieving this, with level 1 being the basic and least preferred option, but probably currently the most achievable and pragmatic:
1. Peer review materials are attached to the article as a single or numerous PDFs. Whether these materials are pulled together into one document or attached as separate documents, there should be some defined mechanism in the JATS XML tagging that would support the capture of any available metadata and identify these files in a machine-readable and interoperable way for publishers to tag this content appropriately.
2. Peer review materials are appended to the article within the full text (so all is machine readable) as a sub-article component of the XML.
3. Peer review materials are full-text XML “articles” or “commentaries” in their own right that link bidirectionally to the main article.
Required metadata versus rich metadata
Whether the material is provided as a PDF(s) attachment to the main article, or as a full-text XML sub-article or separate article, important metadata can be attached to the item in a machine-readable way, and DOIs can be applied. What types of peer review information are available is dependent on the publisher’s peer review policy, for instance whether reviewers and editors are named, whether the peer review material carries the same license as the main article or takes another form, and what items constitute the peer review materials. Additional metadata fields, such as dates of review and date of review publication and the inclusion of ORCID IDs for reviewers and editors will also be subject to publisher policies and workflows. However, all of this material can be added to the item in a machine-readable way. Even if the actual content is not published in full-text XML format, the metadata can (and should) be.
The topic of licensing of the peer review materials was briefly discussed at the workshop but ultimately left out of the remit of this group because the JATS tagging schema would allow for different licensing information to be added for these items or to retain that of the main article, as a publisher chooses.
Challenges in the process
While a few of the publishers had processes in place to prepare the peer review content automatically or within a few minutes, others spend 20–40 minutes per article. In such cases, the tasks that are attributed to this time include the following:
Removing boilerplate text from review reports
“Stitching together” the material from disparate locations in the submission system
Editorial checks:
Reviewing the content for sensitive information, e.g., unpublished data additions and confidentiality leaks, as well ensuring the tone of the report is appropriate
Removing author responses that contain data the author wants to publish in a subsequent paper
Arbitration processes for conflicting reviews
Where time is spent—whether in the editorial or production process—depends on the publisher workflow. Regardless of workflow, the overlap in tasks identified provides evidence of the potential value of updating the infrastructure of submission systems to account for and streamline these efforts. Coordination between publishers and submission systems could minimize the time spent “stitching together” peer review materials into a publishable format.
In addition to time and workflow hurdles, another major challenge noted by those publishers without their own hosting platforms, was the actual publication process and online hosting of peer review materials. Many publishers identified that some online hosts were not able to manage this new content type. As a result, peer review materials are being captured in supplementary material sections because alternative options are not available. In such cases, it becomes more difficult to capture any relevant associated metadata in a meaningful way for the peer review materials or to make this valuable content easily discoverable.
These challenges are common for publishers in that most of the established submission systems and hosting platforms were designed and built many years ago and may be slow to accommodate new requirements. Coordinated communication with these platforms regarding the workflows around publishing peer review materials may result in more satisfactory and generic approaches to accommodating publication of peer review materials.
There are internal challenges of cost control issues that also need to be accounted for, and the publication of a single PDF is often more achievable financially based on current systems than producing full-text XML. However, the attachment of machine-readable metadata to that PDF should be within reach, especially if the submission systems and hosting platforms can build these requirements into their products.
Importance of version management
An additional challenge may be introduced in managing peer review materials in cases where such materials are collected for more than one published version of a paper. The Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group (2008 April), included the following types of article instances:
authors-original
submitted-manuscript-under-review
accepted-manuscript
proof
version-of-record
corrected-version-of-record
enhanced-version-of-record
To this list, the JATS4R working group on “Article publication and history dates” added pre-print. The JATS4R draft recommendation advises that if the publisher publishes a revision of any of these stages, the subsequent revisions should be labelled with suffixes, as follows: “-r1”, “-r2”, etc. (https://jats4r.org/article-publication-and-history-dates).
If the peer review materials reference content in a specific version of an article, that link between peer review materials and correct version should be captured in the metadata for clarity. Managing the associations between peer review materials and article version is essential for journals that make multiple versions of a paper publicly available, to ensure the archival record is accurate and that the process transparent. For example, if a journal publishes three versions of an article, any related peer review materials should be associated with the appropriate version. It should not be left to a reader to determine if a peer review report or decision letter relates to the first version, the second version, or the third version.
JATS XML proposal (designed to aid depositing to Crossref)
Irrespective of the editorial and publisher decisions regarding workflow, we propose the following options regarding JATS XML tagging, designed to also aid metadata registration with Crossref (note we are using the same terms as Crossref where controlled vocabulary is required).
Overarching document type
Review documents may be supplied as:
1. sub-articles <sub-article> to the article being reviewed (sub-articles may be full-text XML or XML metadata plus a link to the PDF)
2. independent articles <article> (with the appropriate <related-article> links – Peer Reviews MUST link to the version of the article they are reviewing and Author Replies; Decision Letters MUST link to the version of the article they are passing judgment on; and Author Replies MUST link to each Review/Decision Letter it is addressing)
Identifying the type of content
<sub-article> or <article> MUST have an article-type attribute with one of the values listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Article-type attributes.
Note: aggregated-review-documents is not currently in the Crossref schema; that schema uses the term aggregate. Crossref has two further attributes to describe the type of content: community-comment and manuscript. The XML sub-group discussed these terms and decided to exclude them as community-comment presumably refers to post-publication comments via systems like Hypothesis and so: a) are not guaranteed to be “peer” comments and are excluded from the criteria of this paper and b) it is unlikely that publishers in the near term would pull that content back into the source JATS XML, post publication. Crossref schema also allows for a stage, pre-publication or post-publication. This is therefore also felt outside of this remit.
The term manuscript does not map to anything we’ve discussed.
Identifying the recommendation
This is an optional item. Currently there is no corresponding tag in JATS and so would require a request to the JATS Standing Committee.
There would be a fixed value list, mapped to the Crossref schema:
major-revision
minor-revision
reject
reject-with-resubmit
accept
accept-with-reservation
NOTE: There should be no “recommendation” for author-comment type content.
Identifying the authors (including ORCIDs)
It is an optional element and should be contained within <contrib>, which should contain a <name> or <anonymous/>.
If <contrib> is used, it MUST contain @contrib-type that maps to following controlled vocabulary:
○ For Peer Reviews, use @contrib-type=“reviewer”
○ For Decision Letters, use @contrib-type=“editor”
○ For Author Reply, use @contrib-type=“author”
We intend that the @contrib-type attribute value reflects the contributor’s relationship to the peer review process and not the relationship with the document.
The <role> tag is optional and can be used for display terms of what publishers may use for their journal (for example variations on the term editor could be Academic Editor, Reviewing Editor, Senior Editor, E-i-C etc.).
Names, affiliations and contributor IDs (such as ORCID), where provided, follow standard JATS tagging (see JATS4R recommendation: https://jats4r.org/authors-and-affiliations).
Identifying any competing interests
Follow tagging recommended by JATS4R: https://jats4r.org/conflict-of-interest-statements.
Identifying DOIs
DOIs for peer review materials are optional but strongly encouraged. Use <article-id pub-id-type=“doi”>
Licensing and copyright
Each review document (standalone article or sub-article) SHOULD have license information with a machine-readable license. Review documents supplied as <sub-article> may have their own <license> element or inherit their license information from the parent document as described in the JATS4R Permissions Recommendations (https://jats4r.org/permissions).
Date
Each review document (standalone article or sub-article) MUST have a pub-date and may have other publication information captured as <event>. Review documents supplied as <sub-article> may have their own <pub-date> element or inherit their <pub-date> from the parent document.
Not allowed
There are some elements that MUST NOT appear in review documents:
a. <funding-group>
b. <app>, <app-group>, <ack>, <glossary>, <back>/<sec>
c. <supplementary-material>, <inline-supplementary-material>
d. <bio>
e. <article-version> Once published, review documents will not be “versioned”. If the reviewer(s) write a review on an updated version of the manuscript, the peer review is a new published object.
Crossref metadata
As of November 2017, Crossref supports the scholarly discussions entailed in the publication process as well as those after publication (e.g. “post-publication reviews”). In the same fashion as all content registered with Crossref, peer review metadata is available via the open Crossref APIs and Crossref Metadata Search. For full details and example deposit XML, see the Crossref peer review deposit guide: https://support.crossref.org/hc/en-us/articles/115005255706-Peer-Reviews.
Display of peer review materials
We also propose that publisher web platforms and archives display peer review materials (or links to peer review materials) in a clearly labeled peer review section. This practice will help ensure that not only are the journal processes transparent but that the content itself is easy to find and navigate to, regardless of how a journal chooses to make them available.
Future/next steps
This proposal is intended to lay the groundwork for the publication and archiving of peer review materials across publishers and publication models, providing flexible options to meet different journal needs and workflows. Moving forward, there is a need for continued collaboration and discussion as peer review models and workflows evolve. As the goals of these peer review efforts are more clearly defined across the publishing and academic communities, certain models may lend themselves more readily to supporting those desired outcomes. Continued efforts to identify the most critical needs of each user group should be explored through ongoing efforts such as ASAPbio and FORCE11. In turn, these needs can inform the technical solutions and recommendations going forward.
Further technical discussions should not be placed on hold in the interim, though. As publishing peer review materials practices grow, there is a pressing need for industry-wide solutions now. We would like to see the XML recommendations from this group be converted to a JATS4R recommendation on the publishing of peer review materials. Similarly, it would be of value to the community for Crossref and JATS to coordinate efforts and ensure some level of metadata alignment for peer review materials that would reduce costs to publishers and minimize barriers to implementation.
This type of coordination between publishers, archives, and other organizations that support the scholarly communication enterprise is critical to ensuring that the needs of the whole community are being met. Past experience has taught us that making content available is just the first step toward increasing transparency. Doing so in a flexible, consistent, and meaningful way is imperative in making certain that the available material is also discoverable and that long-term preservation of the content can be supported. Implementing the next steps through community-driven recommendations in a sustainable way will be important in increasing transparency and rigor of the scientific record.
If you are publishing peer review materials, or are not yet and are considering doing so, please comment.
Data availability
No data are associated with this article.
Comments on this article Comments (2)
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2018
Download
Export To
metrics
| Views | Downloads | |
|---|---|---|
| F1000Research | - | - |
|
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Beck J, Funk K, Harrison M et al. Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16460.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2018
Views
71
How to cite this report:
Ross-Hellauer T. Reviewer Report For: Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17992.r39584)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39584
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39584
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 29 Oct 2018
Approved
VIEWS 71
“Publishing peer review materials” reports the outcomes of a 2018 workshop convened with stakeholders engaged in the publication and dissemination of peer review report, to work towards consensus on “how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Ross-Hellauer T. Reviewer Report For: Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17992.r39584)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39584
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39584
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
80
How to cite this report:
K Polka J. Reviewer Report For: Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17992.r39586)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39586
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39586
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 22 Oct 2018
Approved
VIEWS 80
In “Publishing peer review materials,” Beck and coauthors present the outcome of a workshop that assessed the current state and best practices for the technical representation of peer review material and metadata. The report is well-organized and proposes guidance on
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
K Polka J. Reviewer Report For: Publishing peer review materials [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1655 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17992.r39586)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39586
https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1655/v1#referee-response-39586
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Comments on this article Comments (2)
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2018
“Importance of version management”
You indicate that if publishers publish multiple versions of the article, the peer review should link to the specific version that was reviewed. I just wanted to note that for some publishers, none of the published versions represent the specific version that was reviewed. E.g., if the reviews were performed only on the “submitted-manuscript-under-review” versions, but the publisher publishes only the accepted-manuscript, proof, and version-of-record, then none of the versions are the true reviewed version.
“Overarching document type”
For option 1 (˂sub-article>), ˂response> seems like a more suitable element since it is intended for commentary on the article, but we will go ahead and adopt the group’s ˂sub-article> recommendation.
Some publishers will likely nest the ˂sub-article> for the Author Response within the ˂sub-article> for the Decision Letter/Reviewer Report, while others may opt to organize all ˂sub-article˃s as siblings. We plan to take the sibling approach because this allows the Author Response to remain a direct child of the reviewed article, thereby inheriting the reviewed article's metadata. If we were to make the Author Response a child of the Decision Letter to which it responds, we would have to duplicate the reviewed article's metadata in the Author Response to prevent it from inheriting the Decision Letter's metadata (which will have diverging contrib and license info). Such split-streaming of metadata would create a lot of added work whenever the reviewed article's metadata changes (especially if there are many versions of Author Responses for a given article). This would leave our Author Response metadata vulnerable to becoming outdated if staff neglect to apply changes to all affected instances.
For option #2 (the ˂article˃ approach), you indicate that ˂related-article˃ should be used to indicate the relationship to the reviewed article or to the letter/review to which the authors respond. However, you did not indicate how these relationships should be identified for the option #1 (˂sub-article˃) approach. Perhaps you envisioned that the ˂sub-article˃ for the Author Responses would be nested within the ˂sub-article˃ for the Decision Letter/Reviewer Report? In that case, the nested structure of the XML makes the relationships clear. However, since we would prefer to make all ˂sub-article˃s siblings, we need to add links to clarify the relationships, but it's a challenge to find suitable tagging in this context.
Per JATS, the ˂related-article˃ element is meant for independent articles that are published separately, so this is not suitable with the sub-article approach. While the ˂xref˃ element is intended for internal links, such as links between sibling sub-articles, ˂xref˃ does not provide a suitable attribute for declaring the relationship to the linked object. The ˂xref˃ element also cannot be defined in the ˂front-stub˃ metadata, which is our preference. That leaves ˂related-object˃. Like ˂related-article˃, ˂related-object˃ is unfortunately also meant for content that is published separately, but unlike ˂related-article˃, it is not limited to independent articles. Also like ˂related-article˃, ˂related-object˃ provides an attribute for indicating the relationship to the linked object. Therefore, ˂related-object˃, while not a perfect fit, seems like the best approach that is currently available. We plan to include a ˂related-object˃ link in the Decision Letter ˂sub-article˃ that points to the DOI of the reviewed article (i.e., the sub-article's parent article). The @document-type will be set to "article" to meet PMC's tagging guidelines for ˂related-object˃ links that point to independent articles:
˂related-object id="rel-obj001" document-type="article" document-id="10.1371/journal.pmed.1002644" document-id-type="doi" link-type="peer-reviewed-article"/˃
The ˂related-object˃ link in the Author Response ˂sub-article˃ will include a multi-part pointer, identifying both the DOI of the reviewed article (i.e., the sub-article's parent article), and the DOI of the Decision Letter ˂sub-article˃ to which it responds. The @document-type in this case will be set to "peer-reviewed-article" (since we still want to declare its relation, but @link-type needs to be reserved for declaring the relation to the lowest-level part of the ˂related-object˃ definition [in this case, the rebutted decision letter]):
˂related-object id="rel-obj002" document-type="peer-reviewed-article" document-id="10.1371/journal.pmed.1002644" document-id-type="doi" object-type="decision-letter" object-id="10.1371/journal.pmed.1002644.r003" object-id-type="doi" link-type="rebutted-decision-letter"/˃
PMC tagging guidelines do not provide guidance on the @document-type, @object-type and @link-type values to apply in cases where the linked object is something other than an independent article or a Clinical Trial. It is unclear whether PMC intended for ˂related-object˃ to be restricted to only those two cases, but the above markup does pass the PMC Style Checker and is loadable.
“Identifying the type of content”
There are a variety of ways in which peer review content can be aggregated. For example, in our case, if reviewer reports were provided for the given revision round, they are included within the Decision Letter, so we will apply the @article-type=” aggregated-review-documents” when this occurs. However, if we produce other forms of aggregates in the future, we may want our software to apply alternative handling to those cases. Since the @article-types suggested in Table 1 do not provide a way to clarify different flavors of aggregates, we plan to supply an additional @specific-use=”decision-letter” to all Decision Letter ˂sub-article˃s, whether they include reviewer reports (@article-type="aggregated-review-documents") or not (@article-type="editor-report").
“Identifying the authors (including ORCIDs)”
You say: “We intend that the @contrib-type attribute value reflects the contributor’s relationship to the peer review process and not the relationship with the document.”
I disagree with this approach. The editor is the author of the Decision Letter and the reviewer is the author of the Reviewer Report. I feel both should have @contrib-type="author" in this context.
I suspect many platforms would not adequately render your recommended approach since rendered bylines are often configured to display only authors.
For the ˂role˃ element, I think it would be great if CASRAI could provide additional CRediT roles/definitions that make the Peer Review editor and reviewers' roles clear relative to both the given review document and to the reviewed article. Maybe something like:
Note that for Reviewers, it may be useful to also capture an additional ˂role˃ that identifies the Reviewer's #. Reviewers are often referred to anonymously by their Reviewer # in the Decision Letter, even if they ultimately opted to reveal their identities. If Jane Doe was Reviewer #2 and opted to publish her name, it would be helpful for readers to see "Reviewer #2" identified as one of her roles in the byline for easy reference as they read the letter/report.
“Not allowed”
Publishing the peer review history as sub-articles or as independent articles allows us to avoid the unfavorable practice of providing this information in the form of supplementary-material attached to the reviewed article. However, we have a need for ˂supplementary-material˃ within the Peer Review sub-articles for which I have not found a suitable alternative. Our Decision Letters, Reviewer Reports, and Author Responses are composed from a combination of text entered into submission forms (which will be converted to XML) and any number of file attachments. We place no restrictions on the types of file attachments that may be uploaded and what they might contain. We need the ability to publish the form text as XML, supplemented by the ability to download any supplied file attachments; it would be prohibitive to have to convert the contents of the file attachments (which do not conform to any kind of submission guidelines) into combinations of XML body text and fig/graphic or fig/media inclusions, or to create a single PDF that reflects a compilation of all text fields and all attachments (which may not even be possible since we place no restrictions on file types and they may not always be suitable for conversion to PDF).
I understand that ˂supplementary-material˃ is not meant to be used for files that are considered to be integral content. However, as far as I know, there is no JATS tag that allows me to include an integral file for download without having to vet it for suitability as a ˂graphic˃ or ˂media˃ object. Our article authors are expected to follow strict manuscript submission guidelines that prevent them from including content or files that cannot be reasonably and automatically converted to XML, math, figs, tables, and supplementary-material as appropriate. It would not be realistic to hold our peer review contributors to those same expectations when submitting their feedback. For now, if editors/reviewers/authors supply file attachments to supplement their form-entered content, we plan to supply those attachments as ˂supplementary-material˃ within the ˂sub-article˃. Long-term, I think JATS would really benefit from something like an ˂integral-material˃ tag that could be used to supply a file download for an integral file without regard to its type, purpose, or preview expectations and for which the publisher has opted not to convert to other JATS-approved forms of content. This would prove valuable for some non-Peer Review purposes as well, as I see that the JATS tag library concedes that it is sometimes acceptable to tag integral material as ˂supplementary-material˃ based on mass, stylistic considerations, or space limitations.
“Importance of version management”
You indicate that if publishers publish multiple versions of the article, the peer review should link to the specific version that was reviewed. I just wanted to note that for some publishers, none of the published versions represent the specific version that was reviewed. E.g., if the reviews were performed only on the “submitted-manuscript-under-review” versions, but the publisher publishes only the accepted-manuscript, proof, and version-of-record, then none of the versions are the true reviewed version.
“Overarching document type”
For option 1 (˂sub-article>), ˂response> seems like a more suitable element since it is intended for commentary on the article, but we will go ahead and adopt the group’s ˂sub-article> recommendation.
Some publishers will likely nest the ˂sub-article> for the Author Response within the ˂sub-article> for the Decision Letter/Reviewer Report, while others may opt to organize all ˂sub-article˃s as siblings. We plan to take the sibling approach because this allows the Author Response to remain a direct child of the reviewed article, thereby inheriting the reviewed article's metadata. If we were to make the Author Response a child of the Decision Letter to which it responds, we would have to duplicate the reviewed article's metadata in the Author Response to prevent it from inheriting the Decision Letter's metadata (which will have diverging contrib and license info). Such split-streaming of metadata would create a lot of added work whenever the reviewed article's metadata changes (especially if there are many versions of Author Responses for a given article). This would leave our Author Response metadata vulnerable to becoming outdated if staff neglect to apply changes to all affected instances.
For option #2 (the ˂article˃ approach), you indicate that ˂related-article˃ should be used to indicate the relationship to the reviewed article or to the letter/review to which the authors respond. However, you did not indicate how these relationships should be identified for the option #1 (˂sub-article˃) approach. Perhaps you envisioned that the ˂sub-article˃ for the Author Responses would be nested within the ˂sub-article˃ for the Decision Letter/Reviewer Report? In that case, the nested structure of the XML makes the relationships clear. However, since we would prefer to make all ˂sub-article˃s siblings, we need to add links to clarify the relationships, but it's a challenge to find suitable tagging in this context.
Per JATS, the ˂related-article˃ element is meant for independent articles that are published separately, so this is not suitable with the sub-article approach. While the ˂xref˃ element is intended for internal links, such as links between sibling sub-articles, ˂xref˃ does not provide a suitable attribute for declaring the relationship to the linked object. The ˂xref˃ element also cannot be defined in the ˂front-stub˃ metadata, which is our preference. That leaves ˂related-object˃. Like ˂related-article˃, ˂related-object˃ is unfortunately also meant for content that is published separately, but unlike ˂related-article˃, it is not limited to independent articles. Also like ˂related-article˃, ˂related-object˃ provides an attribute for indicating the relationship to the linked object. Therefore, ˂related-object˃, while not a perfect fit, seems like the best approach that is currently available. We plan to include a ˂related-object˃ link in the Decision Letter ˂sub-article˃ that points to the DOI of the reviewed article (i.e., the sub-article's parent article). The @document-type will be set to "article" to meet PMC's tagging guidelines for ˂related-object˃ links that point to independent articles:
˂related-object id="rel-obj001" document-type="article" document-id="10.1371/journal.pmed.1002644" document-id-type="doi" link-type="peer-reviewed-article"/˃
The ˂related-object˃ link in the Author Response ˂sub-article˃ will include a multi-part pointer, identifying both the DOI of the reviewed article (i.e., the sub-article's parent article), and the DOI of the Decision Letter ˂sub-article˃ to which it responds. The @document-type in this case will be set to "peer-reviewed-article" (since we still want to declare its relation, but @link-type needs to be reserved for declaring the relation to the lowest-level part of the ˂related-object˃ definition [in this case, the rebutted decision letter]):
˂related-object id="rel-obj002" document-type="peer-reviewed-article" document-id="10.1371/journal.pmed.1002644" document-id-type="doi" object-type="decision-letter" object-id="10.1371/journal.pmed.1002644.r003" object-id-type="doi" link-type="rebutted-decision-letter"/˃
PMC tagging guidelines do not provide guidance on the @document-type, @object-type and @link-type values to apply in cases where the linked object is something other than an independent article or a Clinical Trial. It is unclear whether PMC intended for ˂related-object˃ to be restricted to only those two cases, but the above markup does pass the PMC Style Checker and is loadable.
“Identifying the type of content”
There are a variety of ways in which peer review content can be aggregated. For example, in our case, if reviewer reports were provided for the given revision round, they are included within the Decision Letter, so we will apply the @article-type=” aggregated-review-documents” when this occurs. However, if we produce other forms of aggregates in the future, we may want our software to apply alternative handling to those cases. Since the @article-types suggested in Table 1 do not provide a way to clarify different flavors of aggregates, we plan to supply an additional @specific-use=”decision-letter” to all Decision Letter ˂sub-article˃s, whether they include reviewer reports (@article-type="aggregated-review-documents") or not (@article-type="editor-report").
“Identifying the authors (including ORCIDs)”
You say: “We intend that the @contrib-type attribute value reflects the contributor’s relationship to the peer review process and not the relationship with the document.”
I disagree with this approach. The editor is the author of the Decision Letter and the reviewer is the author of the Reviewer Report. I feel both should have @contrib-type="author" in this context.
I suspect many platforms would not adequately render your recommended approach since rendered bylines are often configured to display only authors.
For the ˂role˃ element, I think it would be great if CASRAI could provide additional CRediT roles/definitions that make the Peer Review editor and reviewers' roles clear relative to both the given review document and to the reviewed article. Maybe something like:
Note that for Reviewers, it may be useful to also capture an additional ˂role˃ that identifies the Reviewer's #. Reviewers are often referred to anonymously by their Reviewer # in the Decision Letter, even if they ultimately opted to reveal their identities. If Jane Doe was Reviewer #2 and opted to publish her name, it would be helpful for readers to see "Reviewer #2" identified as one of her roles in the byline for easy reference as they read the letter/report.
“Not allowed”
Publishing the peer review history as sub-articles or as independent articles allows us to avoid the unfavorable practice of providing this information in the form of supplementary-material attached to the reviewed article. However, we have a need for ˂supplementary-material˃ within the Peer Review sub-articles for which I have not found a suitable alternative. Our Decision Letters, Reviewer Reports, and Author Responses are composed from a combination of text entered into submission forms (which will be converted to XML) and any number of file attachments. We place no restrictions on the types of file attachments that may be uploaded and what they might contain. We need the ability to publish the form text as XML, supplemented by the ability to download any supplied file attachments; it would be prohibitive to have to convert the contents of the file attachments (which do not conform to any kind of submission guidelines) into combinations of XML body text and fig/graphic or fig/media inclusions, or to create a single PDF that reflects a compilation of all text fields and all attachments (which may not even be possible since we place no restrictions on file types and they may not always be suitable for conversion to PDF).
I understand that ˂supplementary-material˃ is not meant to be used for files that are considered to be integral content. However, as far as I know, there is no JATS tag that allows me to include an integral file for download without having to vet it for suitability as a ˂graphic˃ or ˂media˃ object. Our article authors are expected to follow strict manuscript submission guidelines that prevent them from including content or files that cannot be reasonably and automatically converted to XML, math, figs, tables, and supplementary-material as appropriate. It would not be realistic to hold our peer review contributors to those same expectations when submitting their feedback. For now, if editors/reviewers/authors supply file attachments to supplement their form-entered content, we plan to supply those attachments as ˂supplementary-material˃ within the ˂sub-article˃. Long-term, I think JATS would really benefit from something like an ˂integral-material˃ tag that could be used to supply a file download for an integral file without regard to its type, purpose, or preview expectations and for which the publisher has opted not to convert to other JATS-approved forms of content. This would prove valuable for some non-Peer Review purposes as well, as I see that the JATS tag library concedes that it is sometimes acceptable to tag integral material as ˂supplementary-material˃ based on mass, stylistic considerations, or space limitations.