Determination of criteria for self / peer evaluation / assessment of publications

After the start of the training activities we have started to take the presentation PPTs and handouts and putting them (after a bit of adjustments) on the CoP platform so that the person starting to write a paper can have some guiding. This is because we are assuming that most of our members are publishing mini research papers for the first time.

This first timer issue applies also to members who are invited to peer review a paper of another member of the CoP. I imagine it is good to remind the basics as in read and not just scan a paper etc. but this could also be used to help someone writing a paper to look at his / her own paper before submitting (a bit of self criticism).

Question 1: Can we have a presentation and materials on peer review in the next training in Malta (and then we will also put such input on the landing page of a reviewer before starting a peer review) ? What do you think ? Can you share materials etc. in comments ?

Question 2: Till now we have paper reviews just by landing stars and the reviewer's comments. Do you think it could be useful to make informal indicators for the stars ? Example : 1 star means "paper is just ok for publication" 2 stars means "paper is interesting and merits a read by people interested or knowledgeable about the topic" 3 starts means ".... 5 stars means "paper is a totally fresh approach and a good example of mini research carried at professional standards" These could be indicators for reviewers and then maybe on the comments box we would put some hints and directions for the reviewer to make sure there are comments and to inspire the comments to tally with the starring.

With this issue covered we would have all resources for IO1 all delivered and perfected.