Wikipedia:Academic peer review

WP:ACPRWP:ACPR

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This page is an attempt to offer a simpler alternative to Wikipedia:Scientific peer review.

If you wish to have an article reviewed by an expert (or better, two experts) in the subject, simply find an appropriate expert and ask them to review the article. If they require more detail, you may wish to ask them to focus on factual accuracy and omissions. Any more general comments will no doubt be equally welcome.

Once the review has been completed, you or the reviewer can publish it on the talk page, and you can put the following template at the top of the talk page:

{{external peer review
| date = date of review submission
| org = Reviewer Name, qualification
| comment =  }}

It is fine to leave the comment field blank. Examples of suitable ways to fill in the "org" field would be:

Prof. Isaac Newton, University of Heaven

Heinz Gregarious, author of "The sexy sons hypothesis"

Ways of finding suitable reviewers

Check the userpages of contributors to related articles to see if one of them is an expert, but has not worked on the article. (Although what we're looking for is outside review, it would not be courteous to pass over our own experts.)
Check a library catalogue or an online bookshop for books written on the subject, and try to contact the author.
Search a citation directory such as Web of Science for articles on the subject, and contact one or several of the authors. (Hint: Academics generally like open-access stuff!)

Sample letter

Dear ...,

Wikipedia is a free, open-access online encyclopedia edited by the internet community. It includes a fairly comprehensive article on ..., found at URL GOES HERE.

We would be delighted if you could review this article for us, as we strive for high standards of factual accuracy and completeness. Please let me know if you are able to carry out this review, or feel free to name a colleague who you believe will be able to review the article.

Best wishes,

(signed)

Note on finding the URL

You should use a permanent link to an unvandalised version of the article. You can find this by going to the "History" tab and selecting a version, typically the current one, but for frequently edited articles, it may be safer to choose one that says "Revert", "rv" or some other variation of this theme, as these are less likely to contain vandalised passages. You can then click on the date for that version and copy the URL from your browser's navigation bar.