Peer-to-peer review: what actually happens on the call

On the subject in the title: Peer-to-peer review: what actually happens on the call Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Documenting an access outcome, dated, because everything in this category expires.

As of June 2026, in my region, the position is as described below. I have linked the primary source rather than a summary of it, because the summaries are consistently a year behind.

If anyone can confirm or contradict this for their own region, please date your answer. An undated claim in this category is worse than no claim.

Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Appeals process: unemotional prose, the criterion quoted verbatim, evidence mapped to it point by point, dates, and nothing else. Describing how the decision affected you is understandable but does not move the needle in appeals.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.