NCB Peer Review
REVIEWING GUIDELINES AND SIGN-UP
Abstract and details about the scope of the submissions will be sent to the reviewer pool and reviewers should indicate whether they have the time and expertise to review one or multiple of the current submissions. The NCB core team will then match reviewers and submissions and provide the reviewers with the full submission.
Reviewers should assess submissions impartially and with a positive attitude. It is recommended and useful to provide feedback on all aspects of computational work. Comments should be considerate, polite and professional, and should target the content of the work, not i.e. the language or the aesthetics (unless they matter for the content). Feedback should be constructive and aim to improve the work assessed. Reviewees may have specific requests, e.g. to comment on particular parts of the work or to focus on specific aspects. If possible, reviewers should address such requests for feedback.
Reviewees will not provide code or data by default. However, if this is helpful or necessary for the review, the reviewee and reviewer can exchange code and data if both sides agree.
Reviews should be completed in two weeks and should not be taken on if they cannot be completed within three weeks. Exceptions can be agreed upon with the reviewee and the NCB core team. This short time frame aims to provide fast feedback to those actively working on projects. Reviews do not need to be as polished as for peer-reviewed journals. There is no consequence and all comments aim to simply help the reviewee improve their work.
Reviewers must not discuss or disclose the content of reviews with others, even their co-workers, or use unique or novel ideas of the reviewees for their own work.
Conflicts of interest
Direct competition or previous disputes between the reviewee and the reviewer are conflicts of interest and need to be indicated. When in doubt, the potential reviewer must contact the NCB core team before receiving the full submission.