Rapid PREreview form about rapid-prereview

[georgiamoon]

Maybe separate unsure/NA since they are actually different values?

[sballesteros]

yes we are currently considering 4 options:

• yes
• no
• not applicable
• I don't know

[majohansson]

@sballesteros Some updates here. I was trying to cut down the number a little and also realized that some additional clarification may be helpful (I add messages to show when hovering over the questions). I can definitely come back to this and edit more, but I think this is a little better. And "yes" should be uniformly a good thing.

Are the findings novel?
On hover: In your judgement, does the manuscript have information that has not been previously known or published?

Are the principal conclusions supported by the data and analysis?
On hover: Is there sufficient evidence to support the key findings of the manuscript?

Are the results likely to lead to future research?
On hover: Do the data, findings, or analysis point to clear directions for additional research?

Have the authors adequately discussed ethical concerns?
On hover: For example, if a human study, is Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval presented?

Does the manuscript discuss limitations?
On hover: Are the most important limitations clearly presented?

Does the manuscript include new data?
On hover: Were data collected or made available specifically for this study?

Are the data used in the manuscript openly available?
On hover: In the paper, supplement, on a public repository, or from a cited source?

Is sufficient detail provided in the methods allow reproduction of the study?

Are the methods and statistics appropriate for the analysis?

Would you recommend this manuscript to others?
On hover: Consider any possible audience: scientists in the same field or others, policy makers, the public, etc.

Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review?
On hover: Would you recommend this manuscript to a journal editor for formal peer review?

Technical comments on methods, data, limitations (optional, limit XXX characters)

Editorial comments on novelty, importance, relevance (optional, limit XXX characters)

[majohansson]

For required checkboxes, will need to think through the options. yes, no, or unsure/NA? Or make not required and just count checks?

[sballesteros]

good point a radio with yes | no | unsure/NA starting from a blank state should do so we can do validation on it and know that user processed the question.

[majohansson]

Yes, definitely value to collecting all. I think it will be helpful to look at a mockup of this. I could see 'only checkbox for yes' being a helpful option only if the form starts getting crowded.

[dasaderi]

Sorry to come late to this conversation. I like the options @sballesteros just laid out. I'd say some questions will require the other + _____ checkbox? For example the question about special attention. But maybe we want to specifically avoid that because it's hard to group data if we allow for free options?