Welcome to Alternative Peer Review, the area of h2g2 where you the Community help us to decide which entries go into the UnderGuide, the underground side of the Edited Guide. If you're used to Peer Review, then you may find Alternative Peer Review hauntingly familiar, and yet refreshingly new in strange and wonderful ways. We like to think of ourselves as 'yang' to the Edited Guide's 'yin'... or is it the other way around?

There are two ways to contribute to Alternative Peer Review:

• 1. Comment on an entry - You can comment on any of the threads below, express opinions, relate impressions, constructively imagine alternative idioms of expression, or otherwise riff off whatever crazy-ass jazz they're playin'... hoping in the process to help produce the best possible entry. If the comments on an entry are generally positive, it may eventually be picked for inclusion in the UnderGuide (see further down this page for more information on commenting in Alternative Peer Review).
  

• 2. Submit an entry - if you've written something that you think is worthy of entering the UnderGuide - or if you think someone else's entry should be in there - you can submit the entry to Alternative Peer Review. Again, if the comments on the entry are generally positive, it may eventually be picked for inclusion in the UnderGuide (see further down this page for more information on submitting entries to Alternative Peer Review).
  

Important Note: Alternative Peer Review welcomes entries that do not meet the Edited Guide's Writing Guidelines, so if you're used to Peer Review, you may find it a bit more anarchic here. We still ask for entries that are basically finished, and which are compliant with the House Rules, naturally, but as far as style and content, anything goes. Opinions, rants, ramblings, first-person accounts, poems, really well-told jokes, fictional fact, factual fiction, euphonious nonsense... all of these and more will find their home in the UnderGuide. Given the quality of writing at h2g2, we expect to see a lot of great entries. If you've written one, and you'd like to see what everyone else thinks, then Alternative Peer Review might well be the right place for you. If not, then you're still welcome to browse through the threads, and who knows? The muse may strike you next.

For a detailed explanation of all of the Review Forums system, please read the Review Forums FAQ.

If you'd like to submit an entry to Alternative Peer Review, please first be sure that it does not comply with the Edited Guide's Writing Guidelines. Your factual, well-researchered, authoritatively true and correct entries belong in the Edited Guide, and Peer Review is the place for them. The UnderGuide has no interest in competing with the Edited Guide for the same material.

How to Comment in Alternative Peer Review

To comment on an entry in Alternative Peer Review, the first thing you need to do is read the entry. That might sound obvious, but it has been known for some people to comment on entries without reading them, which if nothing else is rude to the author who has spent their time writing it. Click on the title or the A-number in the list below and read on!

Once you've read the entry, don't click the 'Discuss this entry' - Instead, click the 'Currently in Alternative Peer Review' link on the right-hand side of the entry - this will take you to the review thread. You can add your comments there, as with any other conversation on h2g2, by clicking 'Reply' to any of the existing postings and typing your comment in the box.

Notes on Commenting

Before you comment on an entry in Alternative Peer Review, consider the following points:

• 
  Is it the author's first entry? (You can check their personal space to find out). If so, then don't expect them to necessarily know all the ins and outs of h2g2: GuideML, how the Review Forums work, etc. Remember, everyone wrote their first entry once!
  

• 
  Have a read of the entire review thread - depending on the nature of your comment, someone may have already said something very similar. Additionally, reading whatever dialogue the entry has already generated may open up new perspectives, and shape your impressions.
  

• 
  If you like the entry - say so! Everyone likes compliments.
  

• 
  Simply posting 'I hated this, it's rubbish', doesn't give the author much of a clue what they may be doing wrong. If you don't like it, try to make your criticism specific and constructive.
  

• 
  Try to understand the author's intent in writing the entry. Some entries will be documentary or expository, and you may expect a formal style, somewhat similar to that of Edited Guide Entries. Others will be more poetic and free-form, and may intentionally include non-standard usage. If you're unclear about the intention behind an entry, then ask!
  

• 
  Don't be afraid to challenge an author to improve their work, but please temper any criticisms with respect for the author as a creator, and as the final decision-maker about the entry.
  

• 
  Try not to worry too much about typos or spelling mistakes - if the entry is picked, the subeditor should sort these out with the author. Concentrate on the content of the entry itself.
  

• 
  Stay subscribed to the thread; once you've commented, keep an eye on what others are saying. It may be the start of an interesting conversation.
  

• If the entry gets picked - and particularly if it is the author's first - pop back and congratulate them!
  

How to Submit an Entry to Alternative Peer Review

To put an entry into Alternative Peer Review, simply click on the 'Submit for Review' button on the entry and follow the instructions, choosing 'Alternative Peer Review' from the drop-down menu. If there is no 'Submit for Review' button, then that's because you can't put that entry into a Review Forum; it might already be in a Review Forum, it might be an Edited Entry, it might be someone's Personal Space, or the author might not want it to be put in for review.

Once an entry is submitted to Alternative Peer Review, it will stay there for at least seven days before it can be chosen for inclusion in the UnderGuide. This 'incubation period' is to allow people time to read it and make comments, and for the author to make any changes which seem appropriate. If you're the author, and it looks like you'll want to make major changes to your entry, then you may consider taking it out of Alternative Peer Review and resubmitting it when it's in a more final state.

Notes on Entry Submission

Before you put an entry into Alternative Peer Review, please consider the following points:

• 
  Before submitting your entry, you might do an h2g2 search on your topic, and see what else people have written on the subject. Reading other people's thoughts might add nuance to your own perspective, and allow you to answer the ideas of others, enriching the coverage of the subject by the Guide as a whole.
  

• 
  You may find that someone else is working on an entry that examines a similar topic to yours. There's certainly no limit on the number of perspectives from which you could see any one issue. Two or more authors approaching the same topic could be a great opportunity for a dialogue, or for you to collaborate on one entry or on a linked group of entries.
  

• 
  Please submit entries that are, as far as you are concerned, basically finished. If you're looking for anything more than a few final comments on your entry, then please submit it to the Writing Workshop instead. Alternatively, if all you have is a basic idea for an entry and would like other Researchers to contribute ideas to it, then submit your idea as a Guide Entry to the Collaborative Writing Workshop.
  

• 
  Remember, if your entry follows the Writing Guidelines for the Edited Guide, then you should submit it to Peer Review, not Alternative Peer Review. We're looking here for great writing that is outside of the scope of the encyclopaedia-style Edited Guide.
  

How Long Before Your Entry Gets Picked?

The short answer is... nobody knows! The UnderGuide Miners choose entries through a process of off-site nominating and voting¹. Once an entry is nominated and receives the support of enough miners, it is chosen for subbing and eventual inclusion in the official UnderGuide!

One thing to note is that the Miners cannot nominate entries that have been in Alternative Peer Review for less than a week (as denoted by the 'Incubate' setting in the Review Forum Data box), so every entry will be in review for at least that amount of time. Most entries stay in their review forum for a few weeks before being picked, so patience is the best advice we can give!

Some good things to do while waiting include: Writing another entry, commenting on other entries in Alternative Peer Review, popping over to Peer Review, or reading some good old fasioned Edited Guide Entries

If you'd like to know about the next stage in the Editorial Process after the Miners have chosen your entry, then check out What Happens after your Entry has been Chosen?

¹Very 'cloak and dagger'