System and method for facilitating the pre-publication peer review process

• US 20060123348A1
• Filed: 01/20/2006
• Published: 06/08/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 04/07/2000
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Neoplasia Press, Inc. (RELX PLC)
• Original Assignee: Neoplasia Press, Inc. (RELX PLC)
• Inventors: Rehemtulla, Alnawaz, Ross, Brian Dale, Stegman, Lauren Daniel
• Granted Patent: US 7,539,938 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 715/751
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/95 Retrieval from the web
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 40/174 Form filling; Merging
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management

Abstract

An improved method for facilitating the peer review process in scholarly publications is presented. This improved method streamlines and compresses the review process, eliminating unnecessary delays and costs inherent in the traditional process. The present invention implements a computer based manuscript tracking process the uses the World Wide Web to allow ubiquitous access to the manuscript under review. This ubiquitous access works in conjunction with automatic generation of potential reviewers and instant notification to authors, editors, and reviewers of significant milestones in the peer review process. Authors are allowed to communicate with anonymous reviewers to reduce the number of revisions leading to approval. Additionally, multiple authors are allowed to collaborate during the manuscript creation process as well as the manuscript review process. This allows several geographically disperse authors to conveniently co-author a manuscript. It additionally allows the author or several authors to respond to comments from the reviewer prior to an editor reading the review.

Claims

1. A computer implemented method for validating conformance of an unpublished article to the scientific method by peer review of the unpublished article over a communications network, comprising:

receiving an article from an author via a communications network;

generating a ranked list of keywords related to the article;

providing the list of keywords to the author;

receiving an approval of the ranked list from the author;

extracting context information from the article;

querying a database containing profiles of potential reviewers to determine a qualified reviewer based on the extracted context information;

assigning the qualified reviewer to the article;

providing an evaluation form to the reviewer;

receiving a completed evaluation form from the reviewer;

providing the completed evaluation form to the author;

receiving a response from the author directly in the completed evaluation form;

providing the completed evaluation form with author responses to an editor;

receiving a publication decision from the editor; and

providing the publication decision to the author and the reviewer.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the ranked list of keywords are generated from the title of the article.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the ranked list of keywords are generated from the body of the article.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the ranked list of keywords are generated from the title and body of the article.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving an approval of the ranked list from the author comprises reordering of the ranked list of keywords by the author.

9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

providing the ranked list of keywords to the author; and

receiving an approval of the ranked list of keywords from the author prior to querying the database of potential reviewers.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein receiving an approval of the ranked list of keywords from the author comprises reordering of the ranked list of keywords by the author.

6. A computer implemented method for validating use of the scientific method in an unpublished article by peer review of the unpublished article over a communications network, comprising:

receiving an article from an author via a data communications network, the article comprising a title and a body;

parsing the title and body of the article to generate a list of keywords;

ranking the list of keywords according to their relative weight in describing the article;

querying a database containing profiles of potential reviewers to determine a plurality of qualified reviewers based on the ranked list of keywords;

ranking the plurality of qualified reviewers;

contacting each qualified reviewer via the data communications network and requesting that the qualified reviewer agree to review the article;

receiving an agreement from one or more qualified reviewers;

providing the article to an accepting qualified reviewer;

providing an evaluation form to the accepting qualified reviewer;

receiving a completed evaluation form from the accepting qualified reviewer;

providing the author with the completed evaluation form;

receiving a response from the author directly in the completed evaluation form;

providing the completed evaluation form with author responses to an editor;

receiving a publication decision from the editor; and

providing the publication decision to the author and the reviewer.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the providing the article to an accepting qualified reviewer step further comprises providing the article to a predetermined maximum number of accepting qualified reviewers.

8. The method of claim 7, further comprising rejecting agreements received from qualified reviewers after agreements from the predetermined maximum number of reviewers have been received.

11. A computer implemented method for validating use of the scientific method in an unpublished article by peer review of the unpublished article over a communications network, comprising:

receiving via a data communications network at a server computer an article from an author, the article comprising a title and a body;

querying a database accessible to the server computer and containing profiles of potential reviewers to determine a plurality of qualified reviewers;

contacting each qualified reviewer via the data communications network and requesting that the qualified reviewer agree to review the article;

receiving via the data communications network an agreement from a plurality of agreeing qualified reviewers;

accepting a predetermined number of agreeing qualified reviewers, wherein the predetermined number is less than said plurality of agreeing qualified reviewers;

rejecting the remaining agreeing qualified reviewers that were not accepted;

rejecting any subsequently received agreements from a qualified reviewer;

providing the article to each accepted qualified reviewer;

receiving a completed evaluation form from each accepted qualified reviewer;

providing the author with the completed evaluation forms; and

receiving a response from the author to each completed evaluation form.

12. The method of claim 11, further comprising parsing the received article to generate a list of keywords related to the article.

13. The method of claim 12, further comprising ranking the list of keywords according to their relative weight in describing the article.

14. The method of claim 12, further comprising:

providing the ranked list of keywords to the author; and

receiving an approval of the ranked list of keywords from the author prior to querying the database of potential reviewers.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein receiving an approval of the ranked list of keywords from the author comprises reordering of the ranked list of keywords by the author.