It is often assumed that grey literature is not peer reviewed or lacks standards of quality and rigour. While this is often incorrect, there is currently no standard way of indicating the kind of review process that has occurred. There are also alternative methods to peer review that are often used to scrutinise grey literature such as review by an expert panel or board, internal review and post publication review.
This set of Review Codes are suggested as a simple way of indicating to readers that a review process that has been undertaken and what that has entailed.
In order to use the Review Code
1. Select the code that is applicable from the list.
2. Add it to the bibliographic information on your document or resource
3. Include a brief explanation of the review process either within the resource or on a separate page with a link provided.
Review Codes
Independent peer review
Pre-publication peer-review conducted with 1 or more independent experts (academics or recognised experts in the field)
Expert panel review
Pre-publication peer-review conducted via expert panel or board which may or may not include members outside of the organisation
Internal review
Pre-publication review conducted internally or with external service including proof reading and editing, fact checking and confirmation of results
Other review process
Some kind of pre-publication review process conducted that does not fit into any of the above.
Post publication peer review
Material able to be reviewed publically on post publication review website
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an initial concept and feedback is welcome. We are also considering developing some icons that could be used to simplify recognition of the different Review Codes.
Produced as part of the Grey Literature Strategies ARC Linkage project
 
