peer review - zfifteen/unified-framework GitHub Wiki
Comprehensive peer review process for Z Framework research and publications.
The Z Framework employs a multi-stage peer review process to ensure scientific rigor and quality of research outputs.
- Reviewers: Framework maintainers and core contributors
- Scope: Technical correctness and implementation quality
- Timeline: 1-2 weeks for initial review
- Criteria: Code quality, mathematical accuracy, documentation completeness
- Reviewers: Independent domain experts and mathematicians
- Scope: Scientific validity and methodological rigor
- Timeline: 2-4 weeks for expert review
- Criteria: Scientific merit, statistical validity, theoretical soundness
- Reviewers: Broader research community and framework users
- Scope: Reproducibility and practical applicability
- Timeline: 4-6 weeks for community feedback
- Criteria: Reproducibility, clarity, practical value
- Code Quality: Clean, well-documented, and maintainable code
- Algorithm Correctness: Verified algorithmic implementations
- Performance: Computational efficiency and scalability
- Testing: Comprehensive test coverage and validation
- Mathematical Validity: Correct mathematical formulations and proofs
- Statistical Methodology: Appropriate statistical methods and analysis
- Experimental Design: Rigorous experimental design and controls
- Reproducibility: Complete instructions for independent reproduction
- Completeness: Comprehensive documentation of methods and results
- Clarity: Clear and accessible presentation of material
- Accuracy: Accurate representation of methods and findings
- Attribution: Proper attribution of sources and contributions
- Complete Implementation: Fully implemented and tested code
- Documentation: Comprehensive documentation including mathematical derivations
- Validation: Evidence of empirical validation and statistical significance
- Reproducibility Package: Complete package for independent reproduction
- Expertise Matching: Assignment based on reviewer expertise and availability
- Conflict Avoidance: Procedures to avoid conflicts of interest
- Balanced Perspective: Multiple reviewers with diverse perspectives
- Quality Assurance: Regular assessment of reviewer quality and feedback
- Review Timeline: Clear timelines and expectations for reviewers
- Review Guidelines: Detailed guidelines for conducting reviews
- Feedback Quality: Standards for constructive and actionable feedback
- Revision Process: Iterative revision based on reviewer feedback
- Qualification Standards: Clear standards for reviewer qualifications
- Training Programs: Training for new reviewers on process and standards
- Performance Monitoring: Regular assessment of reviewer performance
- Feedback Mechanisms: Mechanisms for improving review quality
- Regular Assessment: Regular assessment of review process effectiveness
- Community Feedback: Integration of community feedback on process
- Best Practice Adoption: Adoption of emerging best practices
- Continuous Improvement: Ongoing refinement of review procedures
- Mediation Process: Structured process for resolving reviewer disagreements
- Additional Review: Procedures for obtaining additional expert opinions
- Decision Criteria: Clear criteria for final decision making
- Appeal Process: Process for appealing review decisions
- Response Requirements: Standards for author responses to reviews
- Revision Guidelines: Guidelines for addressing reviewer feedback
- Resubmission Process: Process for resubmitting revised work
- Final Decision: Procedures for final acceptance or rejection decisions
- Quality Thresholds: Clear thresholds for acceptance
- Revision Requirements: Standards for required revisions
- Final Approval: Process for final approval and publication
- Post-Publication: Procedures for post-publication review and updates
- Framework Integration: Process for integrating accepted research into framework
- Documentation Updates: Updating framework documentation with new findings
- Community Notification: Notifying community of new research and findings
- Ongoing Validation: Procedures for ongoing validation of published research