An attempt to share the process of subjecting a manuscript to peer review

This repository assists with the review of the GigaScience manuscript GIGA-D-21-00139, "Citation needed? Wikipedia and the COVID-19 pandemic", available via https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.01.433379 .

It contains my reviewer report (GIGA-D-21-00139-review.txt) as well as video recordings of me reading the manuscript for the second time, taking notes that provided the basis for the reviewer report.

The videos are also available on YouTube (unlisted while the peer review process is ongoing):

• Part 1 (Screen Recording 2021-06-05 at 10.02.02.mov): https://youtu.be/_UnDdE3Oi-4
• Part 2 (Screen Recording 2021-06-05 at 10.52.51.mov): https://youtu.be/z5xRK0lg3b4
• Part 3 (Screen Recording 2021-06-05 at 11.27.01.mov): https://youtu.be/VnztlEqFW2A
• Part 4 (Screen Recording 2021-06-07 at 02.51.59.mov): https://youtu.be/IYtLfMcLTvA
• Part 5 (Screen Recording 2021-06-07 at 06.11.52.mov): https://youtu.be/Jv_AUHCASQw
• Part 6 (Screen Recording 2021-06-07 at 18.07.45.mov): https://youtu.be/6Y-yA9oahzM
• Part 7 (Screen Recording 2021-06-07 at 19.07.02.mov): https://youtu.be/LV5whFhfmEU

Update 17 November 2021:

Here is what I wrote as my review after reading the revised version 5 of the manuscript:

> I welcome the changes the authors have made - both to the manuscript itself (of which I read the bioRxiv version 5) and to the WikiCitationHistoRy repo - in response to the reviewer comments. I also noticed comments they chose not to address, but as stated before, none of these would be ground for rejection. What I am irritated about is whether the proofreading has actually happened before the current version 5 was posted. For instance, reference 44 seems missing (some others are missing in the bioRxiv version, but I suspect that's not the authors' fault), while lots of linguistic issues in phrases like "to provide a comprehensive bibliometric analyses of english Wikipedia’s COVID-19 articles" would still benefit from being addressed.

> At this point, I thus recommend that the authors
(a) update the existing Zenodo repository such that there is some more structure in the way the files are shared
(b) archive a release of WikiCitationHistoRy on Zenodo