Ten simple rules for writing a peer review

Farzana Rahman, Dan DeBlasio

Open source

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359
Published: 2026-06-15
Container: PLOS Computational Biology
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Open access: unknown

Credibility signals

uncertain Score 64/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359,
  title = {Ten simple rules for writing a peer review},
  author = {Farzana Rahman and Dan DeBlasio},
  year = {2026},
  journal = {PLOS Computational Biology},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Ten simple rules for writing a peer review
AU  - Farzana Rahman
AU  - Dan DeBlasio
PY  - 2026
JO  - PLOS Computational Biology
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359
ER  -

APA

Rahman, F., & DeBlasio, D. (2026). Ten simple rules for writing a peer review. PLOS Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359

Source records

crossref · retrieved 2026-09-25T04:29:10.220Z