U.S. patent application number 11/889343 was filed with the patent office on 2008-06-19 for system and method for publishing manuscripts.
Invention is credited to William T. Carden.
Application Number | 20080147661 11/889343 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 38433243 |
Filed Date | 2008-06-19 |
United States Patent
Application |
20080147661 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Carden; William T. |
June 19, 2008 |
System and method for publishing manuscripts
Abstract
A publishing system includes a database that is adapted to store
a plurality of documents, a plurality of computers, each of which
is adapted to be coupled to the database; a network connecting the
plurality of computers together for communication of data relating
to the plurality of documents among the plurality of computers and
the database, means for submitting a new document to the database,
means for reviewing the new document, means for relating the new
document to the plurality of documents, and means for publishing a
journal of a selected portion of the plurality of documents. The
plurality of computers includes a server and a plurality of
clients, and the server is a web server with the plurality of
clients each further including a browser.
Inventors: |
Carden; William T.;
(Charlottesville, VA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON
DC
20043-9998
US
|
Family ID: |
38433243 |
Appl. No.: |
11/889343 |
Filed: |
August 10, 2007 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
09576386 |
May 22, 2000 |
7263655 |
|
|
11889343 |
|
|
|
|
60135435 |
May 21, 1999 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 ;
707/999.007; 707/999.01; 707/999.101; 707/E17.006; 707/E17.008;
707/E17.032; 707/E17.116; 709/205; 715/780; 715/781 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 40/106 20200101;
G06F 16/958 20190101; G06F 40/151 20200101; G06F 16/93
20190101 |
Class at
Publication: |
707/7 ; 707/10;
709/205; 707/101; 715/781; 715/780; 707/E17.032; 707/E17.006 |
International
Class: |
G06F 15/16 20060101
G06F015/16; G06F 17/30 20060101 G06F017/30; G06F 3/048 20060101
G06F003/048; G06F 7/08 20060101 G06F007/08 |
Claims
1. A publishing system, comprising: a database adapted to store a
plurality of documents; a plurality of computers, each of which is
adapted to be coupled to said database; a network connecting said
plurality of computers together for communication of data relating
to said plurality of documents among said plurality of computers
and said database; means for submitting a new document to said
database; means for reviewing said new document including means for
translating the new document into a reviewable submission, the
reviewable submission being electronic and in different format and
having a set of aspects, and for providing a reviewer with access
to all aspects from the set of aspects associated with the
reviewable submission; means for relating said new document to said
plurality of documents; and means for publishing a journal of a
selected portion of said plurality of documents.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein said plurality of
computers comprises a server and a plurality of clients.
3. The system according to claim 2, wherein said server comprises a
web server and said plurality of clients each further comprise a
browser.
4. The system according to claim 3, wherein said submitting means
further comprises first means for translating said new document
from a first data format to a second data format.
5. The system according to claim 4, wherein said first data format
comprises a native word processor format and said second data
format comprises a format compatible to said browser.
6. The system according to claim 5, wherein said publishing means
further comprises second means for translating said selected
portion of said plurality of documents from said second data format
to a third data format.
7. (canceled)
8. The system according to claim 2, wherein said server further
comprises means for searching said database.
9. The system according to claim 4, wherein said second data format
comprises a mark-up language format.
10. The system according to claim 8, further comprising a removable
medium that is adapted to store said database and includes said
means for searching said database.
11. The system according to claim 10, wherein said removable medium
further comprises means for communicating with said server.
12. The system according to claim 11, wherein said communicating
means comprises said browser.
13. A publishing method, comprising the steps of: providing a
computer system at one location, said computer system comprising a
database that is adapted to store a plurality of documents, a
plurality of computers including a web server and a plurality of
clients, each of which is adapted to be coupled to said database
through a browser, and a network connecting said plurality of
computers together for communication of data relating to said
plurality of documents among said plurality of computers and said
database; inputting a new document to said computer system from
another location displaced remotely from said one location, said
new document having been input in a native word processor format;
translating said new document from said native word processor
format to a format compatible with said browser; storing said new
document within said database in said browser-compatible format;
relating said new document to said plurality of documents;
accessing said new document in said browser-compatible format;
collaboratively reviewing said new document in said
browser-compatible format the new document having a set of aspects,
and providing a reviewer with access to all aspects from the set of
aspects associated with the new document; translating said new
document from said browser-compatible format to a typesetting
format; and publishing a journal of a selected portion of said
plurality of documents in said typesetting format.
14. The method according to claim 13, further comprising the step
of publishing said journal in said browser-compatible format.
15. The method according to claim 13, further comprising the step
of publishing said journal in a format compatible with a removable
medium.
16. The method according to claim 13, further comprising the steps
of: assigning a plurality of peer reviewers to review said new
document, said plurality of peer reviewers being located at a third
location displaced remotely from said one location and said other
location; and notifying said plurality of peer reviewers through
said network that said new document is available for review.
17. The method according to claim 16, further comprising the steps
of: associating a review and grading form to said new document;
sending a copy of said associated form and said new document to
each of said plurality of peer reviewers; providing means in said
associated form for said plurality of peer reviewers to enter their
grades and comments; collecting said associated form from each of
said plurality of peer reviewers; and providing means in an editor
center to make decisions regarding publication of said new
document.
18-20. (canceled)
21. A computer-implemented method for reviewing electronic
submissions, the method comprising: receiving an initial
submission, the initial submission being electronic and essentially
complete and in an initial format; translating the initial
submission into a reviewable submission, the reviewable submission
being electronic and in a second format and having a set of
aspects; and providing access to all aspects from the set of
aspects associated with the reviewable submission.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the initial format and the
second format are substantially equivalent.
23. The method of claim 21 further comprising producing complete
proofs of the initial submission for approval.
24. The method of claim 21, wherein the second format comports with
an internal tool of a reviewing entity thereby facilitating review
of the initial submission.
25. The method of claim 21, wherein the initial format is based on
at least one of PDF, MS Word, WordPerfect, Text, RTF, EPS, GIF,
JPEG, TFF, PowerPoint, Excel.
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the second format is based at
least in part on a markup language.
27. The method of claim 21, wherein the initial format may be
received in a plurality of file formats.
28. The method of claim 21, wherein the set of aspects includes one
or more of: abstract; bibliography; background; publication;
document; multimedia document; reference; summary; graphic;
picture; video; audio; links; image; text; title; author data;
affiliation data; key word data; date data; comment; reviewer note;
status; decision; table; figure; equation; symbol; character;
correspondence; article type data; and submission identifying
data.
29. The method of claim 21 further comprising receiving a revised
version of the initial submission in either of the initial format
or the second format.
30. The method of claim 21 further comprising reviewing by a
reviewer the reviewable submission and receiving from the reviewer
an input related to the reviewing step.
31. The method of claim 30 further comprising selecting from a set
of reviewers a subset of reviewers to perform the reviewing
step.
32. The method of claim 31 wherein the selecting step is based on
qualifying criteria, wherein said qualifying criteria includes at
least one of (i) a reviewer's area of specialty, (ii) a reviewer's
prior review history, (iii) a reviewer's professional associations,
(iv) a reviewer's availability, or (v) said author's preference for
or against at least one reviewer.
33. The method of claim 21 wherein the initial submission is
submitted by an author and further comprising sending to the author
a message related to the initial submission.
34. The method of claim 21 wherein the initial submission may
comprise a plurality of related submissions.
35. The method of claim 34 wherein one or more of the plurality of
related submissions is not translated.
36. The method of claim 21 further comprising presenting to a user
via a graphical user interface a set of user-related selections
including at least one of author, editor, member, reviewer, and
administrator.
37. The method of claim 21 further comprising prompting a user for
one or more of author information, submission identification
information, author affiliation information, member information,
meeting information, related document information, reference
information, and subject matter information.
38. The method of claim 21 further comprising publishing a document
based on the initial submission.
39. The method of claim 21 further comprising: receiving a
plurality of initial submissions, each of the initial submissions
representing abstracts or meeting transactions; selecting a set of
the plurality of initial submissions; and publishing a set of
documents based on the set of initial submissions.
40. The method of claim 39 further comprising organizing the set of
documents based on subject matter.
41. The method of claim 21 further comprising analyzing the
contents of the initial submission and determining if the contents
satisfy a set of predetermined conditions.
42. The method of claim 21, wherein the initial submission is one
of a group consisting of: articles, manuscripts, government grants,
industry grants, academic applications, academic examinations,
proposals, contracts, promotional materials, written data, video,
multimedia, streaming video, research proposals, and grant-related
documentation,
43. A computer program product comprising a computer useable medium
including control logic stored therein, said control logic enabling
management and review of documents, said control logic, when
executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out steps
comprising: receiving an initial submission, the initial submission
being electronic and essentially complete and in an initial format;
translating the initial submission into a reviewable submission,
the reviewable submission being electronic and in a second format
and having a set of aspects; and providing access to all aspects
from the set of aspects associated with the reviewable
submission.
44. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the initial
format and the second format are substantially equivalent.
45. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
producing complete proofs of the initial submission for
approval.
46. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the second
format comports with an internal tool of a reviewing entity thereby
facilitating review of the initial submission.
47. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the initial
format is based on at least one of PDF, MS Word, WordPerfect, Text,
RTF, EPS, GIF, JPEG, TFF, PowerPoint, Excel.
48. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the second
format is based at least in part on a markup language.
49. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the initial
format may be received in a plurality of file formats.
50. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the set of
aspects includes one or more of: abstract; bibliography;
background; publication; document; multimedia document; reference;
summary; graphic; picture; video; audio; links; image; text; title;
author data; affiliation data; key word data; date data; comment;
reviewer note; status; decision; table; figure; equation; symbol;
character; correspondence; article type data; and submission
identifying data.
51. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
receiving a revised version of the initial submission in either of
the initial format or the second format.
52. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
reviewing by a reviewer the reviewable submission and receiving
from the reviewer an input related to the reviewing step.
53. The computer program product of claim 52, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
selecting from a set of reviewers a subset of reviewers to perform
the reviewing step.
54. The computer program product of claim 53, wherein the selecting
step is based on qualifying criteria, wherein said qualifying
criteria includes at least one of (i) a reviewer's area of
specialty, (ii) a reviewer's prior review history, (iii) a
reviewer's professional associations, (iv) a reviewer's
availability, or (v) said author's preference for or against at
least one reviewer.
55. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the initial
submission is submitted by an author and further comprising sending
to the author a message related to the initial submission.
56. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
presenting to a user via a graphical user interface a set of
user-related selections including at least one of author, editor,
member, reviewer, and administrator.
57. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
prompting a user for one or more of author information, submission
identification information, author affiliation information, member
information, meeting information, related document information,
reference information, and subject matter information.
58. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
publishing a document based on the initial submission.
59. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the steps of:
receiving a plurality of initial submissions, each of the initial
submissions representing abstracts or meeting transactions;
selecting a set of the plurality of initial submissions; publishing
a set of documents based on the set of initial submissions; and
organizing the set of documents based on subject matter.
60. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the control
logic further causes the processor to carry out the step of
analyzing the contents of the initial submission and determining if
the contents satisfy a set of predetermined conditions.
61. The computer program product of claim 43, wherein the initial
submission is one of a group consisting of: articles, manuscripts,
technology transfer request, governmental grants, agency grants,
private industry grants, academic applications, academic
examinations, proposals, contracts, promotional materials, written
data, video, multimedia, streaming video, research proposals, and
grant-related documentation,
62. A system for managing and reviewing documents, said system
comprising: a computer having a processor adapted to execute
software code and being connectable over a communication link to
receive electronic communications; a memory adapted to store
software for execution by the processor; and a database for
receiving and storing electronic submissions; and managing and
reviewing software for execution by the processor and comprising
code adapted to: receive an initial submission, the initial
submission being electronic and essentially complete and in an
initial format; translate the initial submission into a reviewable
submission, the reviewable submission being electronic and in a
second format and having a set of aspects; and provide access to
all aspects from the set of aspects associated with the reviewable
submission to a reviewer.
63. The system of claim 62, wherein the code is further adapted to
provide a common score sheet specific to a meeting to user, and
enable entry of recommendation information related to the initial
submission.
64. The system of claim 62, wherein the submission includes data in
the form of text, images, graphics, or multimedia.
65. The system of claim 62, wherein the initial submission includes
information related to one or more of an author, subject matter of
said submission, proposed publication date, proposed presentation
date, or proposed meeting or journal for inclusion of the initial
submission.
66. The system of claim 62, wherein the code is further adapted to
select a set of reviewers for reviewing the reviewable submission
based on qualifying criteria, wherein said qualifying criteria
includes at least one of (i) a reviewer's area of specialty, (ii) a
reviewer's prior review history, (iii) a reviewer's professional
associations, (iv) a reviewer's availability, or (v) said author's
preference for or against at least one reviewer.
67. The system of claim 62, wherein a plurality of reviewers are
provided with access to the reviewable submission simultaneously.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No.
09/576,386, filed May 22, 2000, which is related to a provisional
patent application Ser. No. 60/135,435, filed May 21, 1999 by
William T. Carden, Jr., entitled "Internet Accessed Manuscript
Submission and Publication System", and a non-provisional patent
application Ser. No. 09/501,169, filed Feb. 9, 2000, entitled
"System and Method for Publishing Documents", both of which are
commonly assigned to the assignee of the present invention and
incorporated herein by reference.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] 1. Field of the Invention
[0003] The present invention is related generally to manuscript
publishing systems and methods, and more particularly to such
systems and methods that enable authors to submit manuscripts,
articles, and other text, graphics, and multimedia documents
through computer networks in order to facilitate the substantially
immediate review, editing and publishing of such documents.
[0004] 2. Statement of the Invention
[0005] The submission, review, acceptance, and publication of
manuscripts, particularly written materials, is a lengthy and
time-consuming process using the conventional procedures known in
the prior art. The "World Wide Web" (more commonly referred to as
the "Internet") has dramatically decreased the time needed to
communicate such manuscripts to a publisher. However, there are
still difficulties that are encountered in handling most forms of
written material. The written materials, once submitted, are
centrally filed and managed through every step of their review and
approval between their initial submission and final publication.
From an author's perspective, it would be easy to simply attach a
document to an "e-mail", and send that e-mail and document to a
publisher for publication. However, it would still be difficult for
the author to monitor the publisher's approval process. That
process, too, would require the publisher to read, sort, and handle
thousands of randomly formatted documents--a monumental task for
any organization.
[0006] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a
centralized system that avoids such problems is provided. Such a
system enables an author to submit text, graphics, and multimedia
documents to a second party through the Internet. Moreover, the
system overcomes management problems by enabling a second party or
"publishing authority" (e.g., a society, corporation, central
organization, publisher, etc.) to easily process standardized
materials, from receipt to publication, via the Internet.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0007] The disclosed system and methods enable authors to submit
written manuscripts to a publisher, society or agency, preferably
through the Internet, for immediate review, editing and publishing.
All "correspondence", review, and approval of such manuscripts is
handled through the Internet, and stored centrally for subsequent
access by appropriate parties in order to complete the submission
to publication process.
[0008] One of the unique features of the present invention is its
flexibility and ease of modification to accommodate any specific
publisher or agency requirements. Preferably, the system is hosted
on a central service provider's computer, and accessed by all
involved parties from that site. This architecture enables a
third-party service provider to maintain the program and, thus,
free subscribing publishers from any need to monitor the system.
The use of a database that automatically stores the materials in
the desired format enables the service provider to easily display
manuscripts online, print such manuscripts in hard copy or portable
data file format, or transfer to a CD-ROM for presentation.
Manuscripts originally transmitted by the author to the database in
ASCII format are dynamically changed by the system to generate an
HTML or PDF proof for review by the author. Such use of HTML (and
successor formats to HTML, e.g., SGML, VRML, XML) provides a
universal format, which facilitates online proofing, review by
experts, scheduling of presentations, and subsequent publishing to
hard copy or digital formats.
[0009] In accordance with a general embodiment of the present
invention, the publishing system generally comprises a database
adapted to store a plurality of manuscripts; a plurality of
computers, each of which is adapted to be coupled to the database;
a network connecting the plurality of computers together for
communication of data relating to the plurality of manuscripts
among the plurality of computers and the database; means for
submitting a new manuscript to the database; means for reviewing
the new manuscript; means for relating the new manuscript to the
plurality of manuscripts; and means for publishing a journal of a
selected portion of the plurality of manuscripts. The plurality of
computers preferably comprise a server and a plurality of clients.
More preferably, the server comprises a web server and the
plurality of clients each further comprise a browser.
[0010] The submitting means further comprises first means for
translating the new manuscript from a first data format to a second
data format. Most preferably, the first data format comprises a
native word processor format and the second data format comprises a
format compatible to the browser. The publishing means additionally
comprises second means for translating the selected portion of the
plurality of manuscripts from the second data format to a third
data format. Preferably, the third data format comprises a format
that is selected from conventional typesetting/page layout formats
(e.g., PostScript or PDF).
[0011] In an especially preferred embodiment of the present
invention, the server further comprises means for searching the
database. The system may likewise comprise a removable medium,
which is adapted to store the database and includes the means for
searching the database. In that case, the removable medium may
further comprise means for communicating with the server,
preferably by way of the browser.
[0012] A publishing method according to the present invention
generally comprises a multi-step process. First, a suitable
computer system is provided at one location. The computer system
comprises a database that is adapted to store a plurality of
manuscripts, a plurality of computers including a web server and a
plurality of clients, each of which is adapted to be coupled to the
database through a browser, and a network connecting the plurality
of computers together for communication of data relating to the
plurality of manuscripts among the plurality of computers and the
database. Second, a new manuscript is input to the computer system
from another location displaced remotely from the one location, the
new manuscript having been input in a native word processor format.
Third, the new manuscript is translated from the native word
processor format to a format compatible with the browser, then
stored. The new manuscript is then related to the plurality of
manuscripts, and accessed in the browser-compatible format. Review
and approval of the new manuscript is subsequently done in the
browser-compatible format. Then, the new manuscript is translated
from the browser-compatible format to a typesetting format.
Publication of a journal of a selected portion of the plurality of
manuscripts is ultimately done in the typesetting format, the
browser-compatible format, or any suitable portable document file
format.
[0013] Once the manuscript is submitted, the method then comprises
the step of assigning a plurality of peer reviewers to review the
new manuscript, the peer reviewer being located at a third location
displaced remotely from the one location and the other location.
The peer reviewer may then be notified through the network that the
new manuscript is available for review. Similarly, approval may be
done through the same steps.
[0014] In another embodiment of the present invention, the
publishing system generally comprises a database adapted to store a
plurality of manuscripts, each of which was written by one or more
authors in a native word processor format; first server means for
managing the database; second server means for hosting an Internet
website that is accessible by a plurality of clients, each of which
is adapted to be coupled to the database through a browser; a first
code segment for submitting a new manuscript to the database in the
native word processor format; a second code segment for translating
the new manuscript from the native word processor format to a
browser-compatible format; a third code segment for reviewing the
new manuscript in the browser-compatible format; a fourth code
segment for relating the new manuscript to the plurality of
manuscripts; a fifth code segment for translating the plurality of
manuscripts from the browser-compatible format to a typesetting
format; and means for publishing the journal in the typesetting
format of a selected portion of the plurality of manuscripts. It is
noted at this juncture that, by use of the term "journal" herein,
the invention is not deemed to be limited to journals per se. A
book, proceedings, compilation, corporate publication or marketing
collateral, web page, "e-zine", etc. each is deemed to fall within
the scope of the present invention.
[0015] Other objects, advantages, and novel features of the present
invention will become readily apparent from the following detailed
description thereof, when considered in conjunction with the
accompanying drawings wherein:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0016] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an online document processing
system according to the present invention;
[0017] FIG. 2 illustrates various methods of publishing, which use
the online document processing system shown in FIG. 1;
[0018] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a publishing system according
to the present invention;
[0019] FIG. 4 illustrates a web page, which provides a portal means
for gaining entry to the online document processing and publishing
systems of the present invention;
[0020] FIG. 5 is a web page, which provides a means for client
log-in as shown in FIG. 4;
[0021] FIG. 6 illustrates a web page, which provides a means for
creating a user account according to the present invention;
[0022] FIG. 7 is a web page, which provides a means for selecting
among a plurality of user modules;
[0023] FIG. 8 illustrates a simplified flow diagram, which
generally demonstrates accessing means for selecting among the
plurality of user modules shown in FIGS. 1 and 7;
[0024] FIG. 9 is a web page, which provides a means for accessing
the author module shown in FIGS. 1 and 7;
[0025] FIGS. 10(a), 10(b), and 10(c) illustrate in further detail a
flowchart, which implements the author module shown in FIGS. 1 and
7;
[0026] FIG. 11 is a web page, which provides a means for accessing
the administrator module shown in FIGS. 1 and 7;
[0027] FIG. 12(a) illustrates in general a means for accessing a
submitted manuscript;
[0028] FIG. 12(b) is a flowchart generally illustrating a means for
corresponding in accordance with the present invention;
[0029] FIG. 12(c) illustrates in general a means for making notes
according to the system and methods of the present invention;
[0030] FIG. 12(d) is a flowchart generally illustrating a means for
editing manuscript details in accordance with the present
invention;
[0031] FIG. 12(e) illustrates a means for managing and routing a
plurality of manuscripts with the administrator module shown in
FIGS. 1 and 7;
[0032] FIG. 12(f) is a flowchart illustrating a code segment in the
administrator module, which provides a means for viewing duplicate
users according to the present invention;
[0033] FIG. 12(g) illustrates another code segment in the
administrator module, which provides a means for viewing users
without e-mail addresses according to the present invention;
[0034] FIG. 12(h) is a flowchart illustrating yet another code
segment in the administrator module, which provides a means for
setting up schedules according to the present invention;
[0035] FIG. 12(i) illustrates still another code segment in the
administrator module, which provides a means for changing schedules
set up by the means shown in FIG. 12(h);
[0036] FIG. 13 is a web page, which provides a means for accessing
manuscript details according to the methods illustrated in FIGS.
12(a) through 12(i);
[0037] FIG. 14 illustrates a web page, which provides a means for
accessing the editor-in-chief module shown in FIGS. 1 and 7;
[0038] FIGS. 15(a) through 15(k) illustrate in further detail a
flowchart, which implements the editor-in-chief module according to
FIGS. 1 and 7;
[0039] FIGS. 16(a) through 16(e) illustrate in further detail a
flowchart, which implements the editor module shown in FIGS. 1 and
7;
[0040] FIG. 17 illustrates in further detail a flowchart, which
implements the reviewer module according to FIGS. 1 and 7; and
[0041] FIG. 18 shows a flowchart of a special character translation
application according to the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0042] The system disclosed herein below enables authors to submit
manuscripts, articles, graphics, multimedia, and other written
materials through the Internet, thereby permitting the submitted
materials to be immediately available for review, editing and
publishing. Prior art methods require the mailing or e-mailing of
materials from author to publisher, from publisher to reviewer,
reviewer to publisher, etc. In the disclosed system, however, all
such correspondence is handled through the Internet, and the
appropriate parties to complete the submission to the publication
process access centrally-stored materials. It is noted at this
juncture that, within the disclosed system, use of the term
"publication" refers to any display of any written or multimedia
materials, whether it is by way of the Internet (including
"intranets", "extranets", and "virtual private networks"), CD-ROM,
or hard copy. Although one of the most applicable uses of the
disclosed system is the submission of manuscripts for meetings and
publications, the system can readily be adapted to other
submissions, such as SBIR, STTR and/or NIH grants, academic
applications or examinations, corporate proposals and the like.
[0043] Adaptation of the system for internal use, especially within
companies having a number of corporate sites, enables the
submission and review of proposals, contracts, promotional
materials, etc., to be handled efficiently and rapidly. The
processing of a submitted manuscript may vary according to the
particular publication, and the flow of the systems disclosed
herein are by way of example only and do not, in any way limit the
invention. The disclosed system is applicable for Internet
submission, review, revision and publication of any written data,
video, multimedia, streaming video and, although for brevity
reference will be made herein to submissions to societies, it is
not limited to the examples provided herein. Security features,
such as encrypting, access codes, etc., can also be required,
dependent upon the parties, and will be obvious to those skilled in
the art.
[0044] One of the unique features of the disclosed system is its
flexibility and ease of modification to accommodate any specific
publisher requirements. The system is preferably hosted on a
central service provider's computer and accessed by all involved
parties from that site. Publications and societies subscribe to the
service provider's service, at which point all authors, editors,
reviewers, and administrative or editorial staff only need to
access the appropriate module on the site. This enables the service
provider to maintain the program, freeing the subscribing
publishers from any need to monitor the system. Use of a database
that automatically stores the materials in the desired format
enables the service provider to easily display the material on
line, print in hard copy or transfer to a CD-ROM for presentation.
The written materials may be originally transmitted from the author
to the database in ASCII format, and the system dynamically
generates an HTML proof for review by the author. Alternatively,
the original manuscript may be transmitted in a native format
(e.g., PostScript, PDF, or rich text formats). Use of the HTML
format, thus, provides a universal format permitting the online
proofing, review by experts, scheduling of presentations and
publishing to the public. Alternatively, the system can be
installed on a specific publisher's computer system, and various
participants can interact directly with such computer system.
[0045] The system enables dynamic e-mails to the parties
interacting in the process to acknowledge the states of the
materials. Dynamic e-mails are advantageous in notifying the
involved parties of the current states of the written materials,
such as notifying a reviewer of a manuscript to be reviewed or
confirming a presentation time to a speaker.
[0046] Referring now to the drawings, wherein like reference
characters and numerals designate like or corresponding parts
throughout each of the several views, there is shown in FIG. 1 an
online document processing system 100 according to the present
invention. System 100 broadly includes a database 101 (which may be
split, e.g., into partitions 102, 103, 104), a server 105 connected
to the database 101, and five basic modules 106, 107, 108, 109, and
110. Author module 106 is used by authors to submit their documents
for consideration by administrative staff members, an
editor-in-chief, editors, and peer reviewers, respectively, by
modules 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110. System 100 may be further
customized to the requirements of the specific publisher, providing
a consistent submission method for easier review and publication.
The author uses the author module 106 to prepare the forms and
written materials, transmitting the completed manuscript over the
Internet, to database 101. Once in the database 101, as is better
illustrated in FIG. 2, the manuscript is not only available for
peer review and a determination whether to accept the submission as
presented or request revisions, but also the manuscript can be
edited and published in any number of formats.
[0047] The manuscript may be sent, for example, from the database
101 to a web server 201 over the Internet 202 to publish an HTML
document 203 in the form of a web page. Likewise, it may be sent
from database 101 through any conventional typesetting printer
(diagrammatically shown as a laser printer 204 in FIG. 2) to
publish a hard copy document 205. The document may also be sent
from database 101 through a CD-ROM writer 206 to produce a CD-ROM
207. In a presently preferred embodiment, electronic sign-off or
approval enables the submitting author to approve the submission
after viewing its HTML proof. It should be understood at this
juncture, however, that the originally manuscript may be uploaded
to the system in ASCII format or in the format of the source
document (e.g., RTF, PDF, PostScript formats).
[0048] A publishing system 100 according to the present invention
is not necessarily limited to the Internet. As shown in FIG. 3,
publishing system 300 includes the online document processing
system 100, and a plurality of networked computer clients 302.
Conventional Ethernet networks 304, such as the network coupling a
pair of clients 302 through an Ethernet bus 303, or the star
network 301 coupling a plurality of clients 302, may be used to
connect the clients 302 to system 300. Likewise, higher speed
Ethernet networks, such as network 305 using a token ring 306 may
connect the clients 302 to system 100. Even higher speed networks,
such as the ISDN network 307, network 308 using an FDDI ring 309,
an ATM network 310, and a DSL network 311 may be used. Conventional
X.25 type networks 312 are accommodated as well.
[0049] Upon completion of data entry, the manuscript is transmitted
and the author is presented with the publisher to author query
sub-module that has been designed to the specific submission
requirements of the publisher. These would include whether the
author will be presenting, or has presented, the data at a meeting;
whether this manuscript has been published elsewhere; whether this
manuscript is only one piece of a larger project, etc. Once the
author has answered, and submitted, these queries, the system takes
the typed manuscript and converts it into an HTML format for
proofing by the author. Once the author transmits the answers to
the publisher's queries, the HTML proof is generated and brought
onto the screen in the proofing sub-module. Alternatively, the
author can transmit the manuscript to the system server prior to
completion of the publisher to author query page. The proofing
screen is automatically provided with a manuscript number that is
used by the author and publisher identify the specific manuscript.
A manuscript number is automatically generated by the system using
a format that meets with the specific society's requirements. This
"on the fly" production of a proof, conversion of ASCII data into
HTML and its subsequent display is unique to the system.
[0050] The conversion is through the use of a database (e.g., SQL)
that permits the user to write a specific application that is
driven by the database. The use of custom programmed calculation
fields enables the program to convert from the ASCII into the HTML
language. The system takes each field of the data sent in ASCII,
and applies the appropriate formulas embedded within the program
relating to that specific field. An interfacing program (e.g.,
Lasso, CDML, or SQL) is programmed to recognize the specific coding
used with the disclosed systems and enables communication between
the web and the database. In this embodiment, all data is saved on
the server in ASCII and converted, as needed, into the formats
required for the individual application. The language used for
saving the data is dependent upon the base program and can be
changed in accordance with the program. For example, manuscripts
which have been submitted in their native format (e.g., PostScript
and PDF, but more preferably RTF) are saved to the database in that
format for use in typsetting/page layout.
[0051] In the event the author requires the submission of a table
within the manuscript (i.e., when the manuscript is uploaded in
ASCII format), the disclosed system provides a unique table
builder. A table builder button is provided which, when activated,
prompts the author for the designated number of rows and columns.
Once provided with the parameters, the system builds a blank table
consisting of empty data fields. The author enters, or copies and
pastes the data into the blank table field by field. The special
palette enables the author to include symbols into the table. Once
the author has indicated completion of the table, the system
displays an instantaneous HTML proof of the table. The table is
also incorporated as part of the HTML proof. Although for the
submission of manuscripts the location of the table is generally
predetermined by the society, a drag and place feature can be
incorporated in some embodiments to enable the author to reposition
the table. The system also supports multiple tables within each
submission.
[0052] A further addition to some manuscripts is the inclusion of
graphics. The system disclosed herein accepts graphics (e.g.,
graphs, photographs, multimedia files, data feeds, and streaming
video) that are uploaded by the author in a format compatible with
the core system. Acceptable format(s), such as JPEG at 72 dots per
inch, can be indicated by the system. In computer systems that
accept graphics, the submitting author can have a screen where he
would be instructed to "browse" his computer for the graphics
associated with the submission and transmit the designated files to
the system server. The graphics are included in the final HTML
proof. As with the tables discussed above, system 300 supports
multiple graphic images that can be placed around and/or within the
text. The drag and place feature can also be incorporated with the
graphics feature. Graphics can also be combined with the table(s)
to enable an author to provide graphic explanation of a
photograph.
[0053] All of the data submitted by the author is placed, at the
time of entry, into data fields. Each of these entry fields are
tied to hidden calculation fields within the background program
that are specifically programmed to instruct the currently running
program what to do with the data contained within the entry field.
Some of these calculation fields are used to tag the data within
the entry field for output to various media. The media can include
reading by a web browser, a page layout system or prepared for
CD-ROM software or any other media or medium applicable for the
final application. The tags in the calculation fields are specially
programmed to meet the output specifications of the society or
publisher. Thus, if a society is presenting a seminar and providing
a hard copy accompaniment, but no CD-ROM, the web browser and page
layout tags in the appropriate calculation field would be
programmed but not the CD-ROM calculation field. The entry data may
be received and stored in ASCII, the tags, however, determine the
appearance of the data when it leaves the system. Within these tags
would be the font size and style, margins, spacing, etc., to enable
the finished product to automatically adhere to predetermined
society formats. When manuscripts are uploaded in RTF format,
however, all of the font size and style, margins, spacing, etc., is
preserved.
[0054] An approval choice is also provided, enabling the author to
indicate that the HTML proof is either "Approved" or "Not
Approved". In the event the author has changes to make on the
proof, the system provides the ability to edit the text online
through an edit sub-module. Once the author is ready to submit the
manuscript, the transmit, or approval, button is "pressed",
activating a transmission sub-module to send and store the
manuscript to the service provider's database. The author has now
completed all of the requirements for the submission of the
manuscript and exits the system. In a presently preferred
embodiment of this invention, database 101 comprises an SQL-type
database. System 300 also preferably uses conventional PHP software
to quickly convert and display input and stored information "on the
fly" in HTML format.
User Groups
[0055] There are several types of user groups according to the
present invention. Authors are responsible for submission of
manuscripts, including all the supporting data around them. Such
supporting data may include: (a) contact information for the
corresponding author (e.g., name, address, department, institution,
phone, fax, e-mail); (b) list of contributing authors and their
institutions, including all the supporting data around them to a
level specified by the publisher; (c) specification of any color
figures, manuscript types and descriptors, and key words; title,
manuscript, and suggested or non-preferred reviewers/editors and
their contact information, and a cover letter; and (d) mandatory
fees and forms. The rules of electronic submission are followed
with electronic submission, so the manuscript can be reviewed on
system 100. Authors are also responsible not only for proofing
their electronic submissions, and but also using technical support
as necessary to complete submission.
[0056] Editors-in-Chief (EIC) receive each newly submitted
manuscript, once it has been cleared and passed along by the
administrative center, and can accept or reject it at that time.
Typically, the manuscript is assigned to an Associate (or Review)
Editor for reviewer assignments and subsequent peer review. The EIC
is also charged with overall management of this review process,
including the monitoring of each Editor and their turnaround time
(i.e., time from assignment to decision), and making
recommendations for special topics or specific manuscripts. The EIC
utilizes a searchable database for selecting Editors, noting their
displayed workloads, specialties, and histories before making a
selection and assigning via e-mail. With some publishers, the final
decision on each manuscript will come through the EIC for approval.
Reports on turnaround time, types, origins, and numbers of
manuscripts submitted, and reviewer and editor performance is
analyzed by the EIC.
[0057] Associate(or Review) Editors (AE) manage each manuscript's
peer review process. After assignment to a manuscript by the EIC,
the AE then selects reviewers using a searchable database and
noting each reviewer's workload, specialties, and turnaround time
when making these assignments. The assignments are first invited by
way of e-mail. Once agreement to review has been obtained, the
reviewers are notified by e-mail and access granted to the
manuscript. After the reviews are in, the AE is then charged with
making the decision on the manuscript, using their decision
options. An e-mail of decision is generated, edited appropriately
by the AE, and sent to the author, again by way of e-mail or
traditional mail, to complete the process. If the decision is to
revise, the revised manuscript may bypass the administrative and
EIC centers and returns directly to the AE for processing.
[0058] Reviewers (or referees) are invited by e-mail and assigned
to review manuscripts online. They fill out a score sheet and
comments on the manuscript, recommending a decision, and will check
point-by-point author responses in revised manuscripts submitted by
authors for compliance/rebuttal.
[0059] The administrative staff is charged with processing all
manuscripts that are submitted for completeness, mandatory fees and
forms, other requirements, and correct data. When cleared, the
administrative staff moves the manuscript to the EIC for
assignment. The administrative staff is also in charge of
maintaining/updating the user database, organizing all reports and
user access, providing user support and information, creating new
user data and log-in information when necessary, adjusting and
maintaining the correspondence listings, manuscript numbering and
withdrawals, contacting delinquent authors and reviewers, and
communicating issues with the service provider. The administrative
staff requires universal access to all centers and information.
[0060] The Board of Editors (BOE) is the governing body of editors
that approves or recommends changes to decisions made by individual
Associate Editors. The BOE provides the final link in the decision
process, formalizing all decisions, and sending out the decision
correspondence. Utilizing the BOE is a publisher preference, and
other publishers may use their EIC in the same manner. Many
publishers, however, leave the decision to the EIC or the managing
AE that is assigned the manuscript.
Access
[0061] Authors preferably have a link on a log-in screen 500 (FIG.
5) to "Instructions for Authors," which may be created through
collaboration between the publisher and the service provider. This
is because each author must have easy access to submission
requirements before beginning the process. An illustrative web page
400 of the service provider is shown in FIG. 4. Users are also
given access to a plurality of applications 401, only one 402 of
which may be related to the submission, review, and approval of
manuscripts according to the present invention. The user
conveniently selects a hyperlink 403 in order to log-in.
[0062] Once the hyperlink 403 is selected, the user is taken to
log-in screen 500 to input various required data 501. Such data 501
will typically include a user identification or ID 502, a password
503, and a means to select the appropriate journal 504. Users with
no account are permitted to create one. Accordingly, means 505 is
also provided at the log-in screen 500 to create an account.
Account creation, as shown in FIG. 6, may require certain fields
603 selected by the publisher to be validated, such as phone number
and e-mail address. The user may also be prompted to select the
user ID 502 and password 503, with the latter being preferably
double entered for validation. The ability to edit the user profile
and change a password are also available from the main menu as
shown in FIG. 7. Means to use e-mail to request password
information should accompany the log-in process. Any user is
allowed to create their account for submission, editorial, or
administrative purposes within the system. The account and password
is editable by the user, and if information required, an outlet for
gaining that information supplied.
[0063] In the system 100 according to the present invention, users
have the ability to check for existing accounts via e-mail
communication with technical support. Users need a mechanism to
retrieve account information, and to help prevent duplicate
accounts in the system. Moreover, users are allowed to select the
specific publication to which they have access (if they have access
to multiple publications) and to which they wish to submit, view,
or act on a submitted manuscript. This is provided, in part, by the
means 712 shown in FIG. 7.
[0064] For example, a plurality of collaborating authors may access
a draft manuscript from the manuscript center and agree on the
final draft which will be submitted for review.
[0065] Likewise, users have the ability to pick from the main menu
700 the appropriate center 703, 704, 705, 706, 707 for which they
have access. Any given user may fulfill more than one role in the
system. Accordingly, depending on their access privileges, users
are able to select the center they need to work in from the main
menu 700. The basic method of accessing each center is shown in
FIG. 8.
[0066] For example, a user first goes to the main menu 700 at step
801. The user may then select the desired center by selecting (or
"clicking on") any one of the hyperlinks shown in FIG. 7 (i.e.,
Author Center 703, Reviewer Center 704, Editor Center 705, Editor
in Chief Center 706, or Admin Center 707). This is done,
respectively, at steps 802, 803, 804, 805, or 806. Once selected,
the selected center is displayed at steps 807, 809, 811, 813, or
815, respectively. The user respectively continues the process at
steps 808, 810, 812, 814, or 816.
Author Module
[0067] Authors in the system 100 according to the present invention
have the ability to upload files types designated by the client.
Such file types include Rich Text Format (i.e., "RTF") documents,
PDF files, and PostScript files. These files will be uploaded to
location specific to the journal for which they are submitting a
manuscript. Rich Text Format documents are a generic format in
which authors is able to save their manuscripts from most
word-processing programs. PDF and PostScript files (which are
converted to PDF files for proofing) are also generally accepted as
common file types to most authors.
[0068] Referring for the moment to FIG. 9, it can be seen that
authors have the ability to enter any information about the
manuscript they are submitting by way of an Author Center window
900. This information includes the manuscript type, the
contributing authors and their institutions, the Title, the
Manuscript, and its Key Words, although other information may be
added. Navigation between these screens is also available, and once
data is entered, it is saved automatically. This descriptive
information can be reused in summary display windows, for system
users to search on manuscripts based on this information, and in
e-mails for determining prospective reviewers for the manuscript.
Authors also are able to return to screens to make corrections, and
any data will be deposited to the database upon entry.
[0069] A mid-information entry option 921 to return to the main
menu 700 is available for easy exit at any time. This is because
authors need the ability to exit the data entry process at any
time, and to understand what information has been entered
successfully up until that point of exit.
[0070] Authors are also able to compose a cover letter utilizing
client customized fields for recommending or advising against
reviewers and editors, and for comments to the Editor-in-Chief. A
cover letter typically accompanies a manuscript submission, and the
extra information can both add to the reviewer pool and prevent
bias during peer review.
[0071] Preferably, a draft center is provided for completing and
proofing the upload process and its results. Authors will, thus,
upload their documents and, if using Rich Text Format, their image
files in this subset of the Author center. Image files are uploaded
separately if using Rich Text Format, and many files types are
accepted, as are links to other sites, HTML files, and other
document file types. PDF or PostScript files will have the images
embedded in one file. Authors need an area to complete their
manuscript submission and proof the results before formally
submitting. The "Instructions for Authors" will determine their
method of upload.
[0072] Authors have the ability to contact support or submit by
other means (mail or "fax-to-web") if they encounter difficulties.
They are able to communicate to technical support via e-mail to
express specific issues with their submissions. Authors need the
ability to complete their submission without undue effort. Support
and alternative submission options will ease their effort.
[0073] Authors are provided their official manuscript number upon
submission and access to any mandatory forms for completion. A
confirming e-mail is also sent to the corresponding author and any
co-authors whose e-mail addresses have been provided. The client's
administrative center will also be alerted by e-mail of each new
submission. The author needs their manuscript ID number to track
the progress of the manuscript, and the forms to make sure the
manuscript is processed. These forms may include a payment form, if
the client charges for submission. The confirming e-mails follow up
the onscreen confirmation, and alert the client's administrative
staff that a new submission is ready for processing.
[0074] The author center is preferably separated into three
sections: (1) Manuscripts to be Revised, which appears only when a
manuscript has been decided as needing revision before possible
acceptance, and adds an appropriate designation such as RI to the
manuscript ID; (2) Partially Submitted Manuscripts, which are
manuscripts being worked on but not submitted; and (3) Submitted
Manuscripts, where formally submitted manuscripts are updated as
they move through the peer review process. Once a manuscript has
been submitted, however, the submitting author loses his/her
permission to and cannot access that submitted manuscript; a new
manuscript must be submitted if revisions are to be made.
Manuscript revisions are accompanied by a link to the original
decision letter, which includes editor and reviewer(s) comments,
and forms to reply to both sets of comments that are transmitted to
the editor and reviewers to consult during the next round or
review. Authors need the ability to track their manuscripts after
submission and to keep track of manuscripts they are working on.
For revisions, the author can bypass the descriptive information
associated with the manuscript and move right to the Draft center
for upload.
[0075] How authors use the system 300 of the present invention will
now be described by reference to FIGS. 10(a), 10(b), and 10(c). At
the outset, the author accesses the system 300, logs-in, and goes
to the main menu 700 at step 1001. He/she then selects the Author
Center at step 1002, after which a list of manuscripts is displayed
at step 1003 and as shown in FIG. 9. If the author is submitting
his/her first manuscript, the system 300 prompts the author at step
1004. The author then selects the "Submit First Draft of a New
Manuscript" hyperlink 901, and enters the manuscript type. The
system 300 then prompts the author at step 1007 with the question
whether the manuscript includes any color illustrations. If so, the
author then checks a radio button (not shown) to so indicate at
step 1008.
[0076] If there are other contributing authors, the system 300
prompts the author to answer that question at step 1010. If so, the
system 300 then prompts the author to enter the name of such other
author(s) at step 1011. The system 300 then prompts the author with
the question whether the name of the author's affiliated
institution has been entered at step 1009. This process continues
in a loop until all author's names and the names of their
affiliated institutions have been entered. In the event that there
are no color illustrations and no contributing authors, the system
300 prompts the author to go to step 1009 directly.
[0077] The system 300 then prompts the author with the question
whether a title of the manuscript has been entered at step 1012. If
so, the system 300 prompts the author with the question whether an
abstract has been entered at step 1014. The system 300, in the
event step 1014 was answered in the affirmative, then prompts the
author with the question whether keywords have been entered at step
1016. In each of the preceding three questions if the answer is no,
the author is prompted to take the action at steps 1015, 107, and
1019, respectively, and the process continues.
[0078] The system 300 then prompts the author with the question
whether he/she has any suggested peer reviewers at step 1018. If
not, the process continues at step 1021 (FIG. 10(b)). If so, the
system 300 prompts the author to enter the names of those suggested
reviewers at step 1020, and the process continues at step 1021
(FIG. 10(b)). If the author is not submitting a first draft, he/she
is prompted with the question whether he/she would want to view
another draft at step 1006. If not, the system 300 redirects the
author to the main menu 700. Otherwise, the process continues at
step 1036 (FIG. 10(b)).
[0079] The system 300 then prompts the author with the question, at
step 1021, whether he/she has any peer reviewers who are not
preferred. If so, the author is prompted to enter the names of the
non-preferred reviewers at step 1022. If not, or after the author
has entered those names, the system 300 then prompts the author
with the question whether he/she wants to send any comments to the
editor-in-chief. This is done so at step 1023. If the answer is
yes, the system 300 prompts the author to enter those comments at
step 1024. Otherwise, or after such comments have been entered, the
system 300 sends the author to the draft center at step 1025.
[0080] Once in the draft center, the system 300 prompts the author
with the question whether he/she wants to upload his/her manuscript
at step 1026. If so, the system 300 then uploads the manuscript at
step 1027. Otherwise, the system prompts the author with the
question whether he/she has any changes to make to the manuscript
at step 1028. If not, the system 300 uploads the manuscript.
Otherwise, the system 300 provides for forward and back options at
step 1029 such that the author may make those changes or upload the
manuscript only when it is deemed ready.
[0081] While the manuscript is being uploaded, the system 300
performs error checking at step 1030. The system 300 continually
determines whether the error check has been completed at step 1031,
looping back to the check as appropriate. Once the check has been
completed, an HTML proof is displayed at step 1032. This display
may also be reached by selecting the manuscript title at step 1036
after an affirmative response to the query of step 1006 (FIG.
10(a)). The system 300 then prompts the author at step 1033 with
the question whether to submit the manuscript as shown in the
proof. If not, the system 300 returns the author to the main menu
700. However, if the author does want to submit the manuscript at
this stage, he/she may do so by clicking the "submit" button (not
shown) on the proof at step 1034. A confirmation window is
displayed at step 1035 and the system 300 returns the author to the
log-in screen 500.
[0082] As shown in FIG. 10(c), the author may view comments
regarding submitted manuscripts from the draft center 1037. There,
the system 300 prompts the author with the question whether he/she
wants to view the comments of his/her peer reviewers at step 1038.
If not, the system 300 returns the author to the draft center 1037.
Otherwise, the system 300 displays a response form at step 1039.
The system 300 then prompts the author with the question whether
he/she would want to respond to the comments of his/her peer
reviewers at step 1040. If not, the system 300 returns the author
to the draft center 1037. Otherwise, the author enters his/her
response at step 1041, and upon completion, returns to the draft
center 1037.
Administrator Module
[0083] The client's administrative staff have complete and
immediate access to all newly submitted manuscripts from their
administrative center Menu. Access includes not only the
descriptive information submitted with the manuscript, but also the
date submitted and access to the manuscript itself in electronic
form. A checklist of items is completed before the manuscript is
moved along for assignment. The role of the administrative staff is
to ensure each submission has all the necessary elements completed
and submitted before it moving into the peer review process. This
includes checking the manuscript for completeness and noting that
any mandatory fee and/or submission form has been received.
[0084] The administrative staff have the ability to move new
manuscript submissions on to the Editor-in-Chief for peer review
assignments. E-mail is sent to the Editor-in-Chief when a new
submission has entered his or her center for assignment. Once it is
determined that a manuscript is ready for peer review, the
administrative staff will initiate this process by opening access
to the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief. The accompanying e-mail
prompts the Editor-in-Chief that a new manuscript awaits
action.
[0085] The administrative staff have access to all manuscripts and
manuscript histories through a multi-field search function in the
administrative center. The history should include but not be
limited to the following: all of the steps of the peer review
process and their dates of completion, all comments and reviews
associated with the manuscript, all descriptive information about
the manuscript, its peer review team and associated dates of
response and assignment, and any correspondence associated with the
manuscript. In order to support users and assist in the management
of the peer review process, the ability to search for any
manuscript and display its history is vital to the success of the
system and the communication with its users.
[0086] The administrative staff have numerous reports and listings
available via links in the Administrative Menu and in the Reports
Menu. The reports and listings can be customized per client, but
several standard items are included with the system. All listings
should include manuscript ID number, corresponding and contributing
authors, institutions of the corresponding author, the Associate
(or Review) Editor (when assigned), and the current manuscript
status. Most of these fields can be sorted, and each listing is
typically broken into sets of ten that can be navigated with Next
and Previous buttons. Samples of listings include but are not
limited to manuscripts with Editor-in-Chief and with Associate (or
Review) Editors, accepted and rejected manuscripts and outstanding
revisions. Samples of reports include but are not limited to number
of manuscripts by type, country, decision, and editor, time from
submission to first decision and acceptance, time from
Editor-in-Chief to Editor, time from Editor to reviewer,
accept/reject ratios, reviewer listings and performance histories,
and outstanding reviews.
[0087] All reports and listings are vital to the management and
subsequent tracking of and periodic reporting on the process of
peer review. The sorts and the breakdown of lists into sets of
navigable screens will facilitate screen re-drawing and information
retrieval.
[0088] In the Reports Menu, one report, Outstanding Reviews
(non-returned reviews), contains management capabilities including
reviewer contact information, a notes field for comments, and an
e-mail-sending capability for action. Reviewer management is the
most important element of successful peer review. Enabling the
administrative staff to assist the editors in facilitating review
in a timely fashion is crucial to the success of any peer review
system.
[0089] The system highlights manuscript numbers for which decisions
are overdue in red in the following areas: the Administrative
center listings, the Editor-in-Chief listings, the Associate (or
Review) Editor listings, and in the Outstanding Reviews report.
Management of the review process is vital to the success of any
peer review system, and highlighting these overdue items will alert
all users of the necessity to instigate action towards
decision.
[0090] There is a designated area for creating and maintaining all
e-mail correspondence utilized in the system. Users have the
ability to edit and activate (or deactivate) any correspondence,
bringing in the required database fields as necessary to
automatically populate the correspondence with the appropriate
data. The administrative staff needs to maintain and update all
correspondence that will be sent to users. The use of database
fields in the correspondence allows for the enhanced utilization of
the collected user data.
[0091] The administrative staff should set up schedules for
automatic, system-sent e-mails and the highlighting of overdue
decisions on manuscripts. The automatic reminder e-mails are for
reviewers with non-returned reviews and sent on predetermined
schedules. The wording of these e-mails is determined in the
correspondence section, and any sent e-mails listed in each
manuscript's correspondence history. Manuscripts in need of
decisions are marked according to predetermined schedules set in
the same manner as the automatic e-mails. Reviewer management is
the most important element of successful peer review. Automatic
reminders will help facilitate this process, and highlighting
overdue decisions will instigate appropriate action.
[0092] The administrative staff have the ability to add to,
maintain, edit, and update the user database and the access of each
user through a link in the administrator center menu 1100 shown in
FIG. 11. The administrative staff, limiting or opening up access as
required, determines access for each user and otherwise keep the
database current. user IDs and Passwords can be determined in this
area as well. The database is searchable by name, key word, and
area of expertise.
[0093] The administrative staff is charged with keeping the
database, which is the backbone of the system, current and
accurate. This staff must also determine access rights, which is
the central source for all client data and editorial appointments.
A searchable database will facilitate its manipulation and
information retrieval.
[0094] The administrative staff have the ability to send an
"account created" e-mail with log-in information to new or
established users by clicking a button in the user database. Having
the ability to alert new users and remind current users of their
log-in information from the user database will facilitate the
communication between administrative staff and system users.
[0095] Administrative staff have the ability to log-in as any user
with a button located in the user database. Administrative staff
may fill other roles, such as Associate (or Review) Editor at the
outset of system implementation, but more typically this feature is
used to complete requested tasks or investigate user issues.
[0096] The administrative staff have the ability to more quickly
enter the descriptive author data that accompanies a manuscript
submission through a link in the administrative center. This option
will display all the required fields for manuscript entry in one
form, and stop prior to uploading the manuscript. Particularly when
a system first opens, the transition to electronic submission
typically entails the administrative staff assisting in manuscript
submission to a degree that necessitates the facilitated entry of
data. As users become accustomed to the system, this feature will
be utilized in more time-sensitive situations.
[0097] Referring now to FIGS. 11 and 13, in conjunction with FIGS.
12(a) through 12(i), methods for accomplishing the foregoing will
now be described. At the administrator center menu 1100, there are
a plurality of selectable options, which provide the user with the
ability to: view new manuscripts 1101; view outstanding manuscripts
1102; view accepted manuscripts 1103; view rejected manuscripts
1104; withdraw/view withdrawn manuscripts 1105; do user
administration 1106; view a list of reviewers and key words 1107;
and view/edit default letters 1108. The user may also return to the
main menu 700 merely by selecting the "Main Menu" button 1109.
[0098] As shown in FIG. 12(a), a user is first prompted by the
system 300 with the question whether the user would want to view
manuscripts at step 1201. If not, other options are available. If
so, however, the user then selects the appropriate "view
manuscripts" hyperlink 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, or 1105 at step
1202. The system 300 then displays the appropriate list of
manuscripts at step 1203. The system 300 then prompts the user with
the question whether the user wants to view the details of a
manuscript at step 1204. If so, the user must select the manuscript
title (e.g., 1303 in FIG. 13) at step 1205, whereupon the selected
manuscript proof is displayed at step 1207. Alternatively, the
system 300 prompts the user directly with the question whether the
user wants to view the manuscript proof at step 1206. If so, the
user again selects the manuscript title hyperlink 1303 and the
proof is displayed. Otherwise, the user can continue with other
options.
[0099] For example, and referring now to FIG. 12(b), the system 300
prompts the user with the question whether the user would like to
view correspondence at step 1208. If so, the user may select a
hyperlink (not shown) to "view correspondence" at step 1209,
whereupon a record of the correspondence for the selected
manuscript is displayed at step 1210. If not, the system 300
prompts the user with the question whether the user wants to send
e-mail messages at step 1211. If not, the user continues with other
available options. If so, the user must select the e-mail address
of the desired party (e.g., in this case, the author) by clicking
on a hyperlink 1307. Then, the system 300 displays an e-mail
message window at step 1213.
[0100] In the event that the user (e.g., an administrator) wants to
make notes, the user answers the prompt at step 1214 in the
affirmative by selecting the notes box 1308 at step 1215. The user
then inputs the notes at step 1216, and the system prompts the user
with the question whether the user wants to save such notes at step
1217. The user then selects "Save Notes" (e.g., by clicking the
button 1309), and the system 300 saves the notes to its database
101.
[0101] Another user option is shown in FIG. 12(d). The system 300
prompts the user with the question whether the user would want to
update manuscript details at step 1219. If so, the user selects the
detail(s) to update at step 1220, edits the details at step 1221,
and answers a prompt from the system 300 with the question at step
1222 whether the update is complete. If so, the system 300 then
prompts the user with the question whether to save the update at
step 1223. If so, the user then selects "Enter" (not shown),
whereupon the system 300 then updates the database 101 at step
1229.
[0102] Alternatively, the system may prompt the user at step 1224
with the question whether the user would want to change the
manuscript type 1302 at step 1224. If so, the user must select the
manuscript ID at step 1225, and edit that ID at step 1226. The
system 300 then prompts the user with the question whether the
change is complete at step 1227. If so, the save and updates steps
1223, 1228, and 1229 are then completed as described herein
above.
[0103] As shown in FIG. 12(e) the system 300 may also prompt the
user with the question whether the user would want to update
information at step 1230. If so, the system 300 then prompts with
the question at step 1231 whether the user has selected a "Send to
EIC" button 1313. If so, the system 300 then removes the currently
selected manuscript (e.g., a new manuscript which has not been
assigned) from the list at step 1232, and returns to the list at
step 1234. Otherwise, the system 300 will maintain the currently
selected manuscript in the list at step 1233, and returns to that
list at step 1234.
[0104] FIG. 12(f) describes other functionality provided to a user
of the administrator center. For example, from the administrator
center menu 1100, the system 300 can prompt the user with the
question whether the user would want to view potential duplicate
users at step 1235. If so, the user then would select a "View
Potential Duplicate Users" hyperlink (not shown) at step 1236,
wherein a list of potential duplicate users would be displayed by
the system 300 at step 1237. Similar such processes for viewing
users without e-mail addresses and setting schedules are
respectively shown in FIGS. 12(g) and 12(h). Finally, and referring
now to FIG. 12(i), the system 300 may prompt the user with the
question whether the user would want to change the schedule
relating to the review process at step 1244. If not, the system 300
then determines whether the user would want to save the schedule at
step 1247, and the user would then select "Enter" at step 1248. If
the user wanted to change the schedule, the user would do so at
step 1245, and the system would then update the schedule in the
database 101 at step 1246.
Editor-in-Chief Module
[0105] The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) module has the ability to assign
Associate (or Review) Editors to oversee the peer review process
for each manuscript. Access to each manuscript's information and
its electronic file is instantly available upon the manuscript
after having received clearance from the administrative center.
Assignment of editors is facilitated through the use of a
searchable editors database, with search fields for name, key
words, and area of expertise. Each editor's personal information,
number of assignments, and manuscript management history is
displayed before assignment. Assignments will be made via e-mail
communication, which grants access to the editor to that specific
manuscript only. Re-assignments can be made at any time, through
removal and new selection, as access to each assigned manuscript is
maintained until a decision is rendered. All e-mails in the system
are editable before sending in each center (except any
system-generated, auto-e-mails, which are editable by accessing the
admin center). The EIC should also have the ability to render an
immediate decision on any manuscript, which in turn will render a
decision e-mail to the corresponding author, and populate the
database in all of the appropriate locations, such as each
individual manuscript history.
[0106] The role of the EIC is to oversee the peer review of every
manuscript and to assign each manuscript to a managing editor. The
EIC must utilize the available data to make the appropriate
selections based on expertise and workload, and maintain the
ability to make changes to assignments up until final decision. The
EIC also has the ability to render final decisions, and access all
of the history of every submitted manuscript. Any e-mail from any
center is editable so stock wording can be customized as necessary;
this is especially useful for decision e-mails.
[0107] The EIC have access to all manuscripts and manuscript
histories through a multi-field search function in the
Editor-in-Chief center. The history should include but not be
limited to the following: all of the steps of the peer review
process and their dates of completion, all comments and reviews
associated with the manuscript, all descriptive information about
the manuscript, its peer review team and associated dates of
response and assignment, and any correspondence associated with the
manuscript. In order to support users and assist in the management
of the peer review process, the ability to search for any
manuscript and display its history is vital to the success of the
system and the communication with its users. For the EIC, this
information is mainly relevant in the monitoring of editor
performance.
[0108] The EIC has numerous reports and listings available via
links in the editor-in-chief menu and in the Reports Menu. The
reports and listings can be customized per client, but several
standard items are included with the system. Samples of listings
include but are not limited to manuscripts with Associate (or
Review) Editors, accepted and rejected manuscripts and outstanding
revisions. Samples of reports include but are not limited to number
of manuscripts by type, country, decision, and editor, time from
submission to first decision and acceptance, time from
Editor-in-Chief to Editor, time from Editor to reviewer,
accept/reject ratios, reviewer listings and performance histories,
and outstanding reviews. All reports and listings are vital to the
management and subsequent tracking of and periodic reporting on the
process of peer review.
[0109] The EIC have the ability to add to, maintain, edit, and
update the user database on a limited basis. The database is
searchable by name, key word, and area of expertise. The EIC can
garner and add new reviewers by accessing the author's suggested
reviewers listing, and otherwise assist in the maintenance of the
user database. Other than reviewer status, however, the EIC cannot
grant access rights or user IDs and Passwords. A searchable
database will facilitate its manipulation and information
retrieval.
[0110] Referring now to FIGS. 14 and 15(a) through 15(k), the
processes involved with the Editor Module will now be described. An
Editor in Chief Center window 1400 is shown in FIG. 14. Like center
menus previously described, the Editor in Chief menu 1400 includes
various options 1401-1408. It also includes the ability to return
to the main menu 700 by selecting button 1409. Also, the Editor in
Chief menu 1400 includes a list 1410 of the available editors 1411,
and an ability to assign those editors by selecting button
1412.
[0111] The system 300, for example, may prompt the EIC with the
question whether to search for editors at step 1501. If so, the EIC
must select "Search" at step 1502, whereupon an editor search
window is displayed at step 1503. The system 300 then prompts the
EIC with the question whether to search for an editor by name at
step 1504. If so, the editor list 1410 is refreshed at step 1505
with the name of the editor searched included. The system 300 may
also prompt the EIC at step 1506 with the questions whether to view
all editors/refresh the list 1410. If not, the system 300 prompts
the user with the questions whether to cancel at step 1507.
[0112] The EIC may also search for manuscripts. As shown in FIG.
15(b), the system 300 prompts the EIC at step 1508 whether to
conduct that search. The EIC must then select "Search" at step
1509, and input the search parameters at step 1510, whereupon the
list of manuscripts is refreshed, including the search results, and
displayed at step 1511.
[0113] The system 300 may also prompt the EIC at step 1512 (FIG.
15(c)) with the question whether the EIC would want to view editor
details. If so, the EIC selects the editor's name at step 1513 from
the list 1410, and the editor details are displayed at step 1514.
From there, the system 300 prompts the EIC with the question
whether to assign that editor at step 1515. If so, the system 300
must determine at step 1516 whether an editor is currently assigned
to that manuscript. If so, then further assignment at this point
would be unavailable. If not, the EIC highlights the editor's name
at step 1517, and the system 300 (at step 1518) then closes the
editor details window and updates the manuscript details
window.
[0114] As shown in FIG. 15(d), the EIC may also be prompted by the
system 300 at step 1519 with the question whether to edit and send
a review request. If so, the EIC then highlights the editor's name
and presses an "Edit and Send Review Request" button or hyperlink
(not shown). An e-mail form with a default invitation to be editor
is then displayed to the EIC at step 1521, and the EIC is prompted
by the system 300 with the question whether to send the invitation
at step 1522. If so, the EIC presses "Send" or other such means,
the system 300 assigns the manuscript, removes the manuscript from
the unassigned list, and returns to display the list of unassigned
manuscripts at step 1524.
[0115] Acceptance and rejection of the manuscripts is performed by
the methods shown in FIG. 15(e). The system 300 prompts the EIC at
step 1525 with the question whether to accept the manuscript. If
so, an EIC Comments to Author Form (for acceptance) is displayed at
step 1526. The EIC completes the form and sends it at step 1527,
whereupon the system 300 displays a Letter to Author Form (for
acceptance) at step 1528. Again, the EIC completes the form and
presses send at step 1529. In the event that the EIC did not want
to accept the manuscript as determined at step 1525, the system 300
would then prompt the EIC with the question whether to reject the
manuscript at step 1530. If so, an EIC Comments to Author Form (for
rejection) is displayed at step 1531. The EIC completes the form
and sends it at step 1532, whereupon the system 300 displays a
Letter to Author Form (for rejection) at step 1533. Again, the EIC
completes the form and presses send at step 1534.
[0116] As shown in FIG. 15(f), the system 300 also may prompt the
EIC with the question whether to view a list of reviewers suggested
by the author at step 1535. If so, the EIC selects "View Suggested
Reviewers" at step 1536, whereupon the system 300 displays a list
of author-requested reviewers at step 1537. If not, the system 300
then prompts the EIC with the question whether to view a list of
non-preferred reviewers at step 1538. If so, the EIC selects "View
Non-Preferred Reviewers" at step 1539, whereupon the system 300
displays a list of author-excluded reviewers at step 1540.
[0117] The system 300 may also prompt the EIC with the question
whether to view a selected editor at step 1541. If so, the EIC
clicks on the selected editor at step 1542, and a list of
author-requested reviewers is displayed by the system 300 at step
1543. Otherwise, the system 300 prompts the EIC at step 1544 with
the question whether to view a list of non-preferred reviewers. If
so, the same process as related to steps 1539 and 1540 is carried
out at steps 1545 and 1546.
[0118] FIG. 15(g) illustrates the methods of removing an editor or
viewing reports. For example, the system 300 may prompt the EIC
with the question whether to remove an editor at step 1547. If so,
the EIC selects "Trash Can" or similar such means at step 1548, the
system 300 removes the editor's name from the manuscript details,
and permits his/her reassignment for other manuscripts at step
1549. A refreshed details window is then displayed at step 1550.
The system 300 then prompts the EIC with the question whether to
review comments at step 1551. If so, the EIC selects "View
Comments" at step 1552, and the system 300 displays the Reviewer
and Editor Comments relating to that manuscript at step 1553.
[0119] The system 300 may also prompt the EIC with the question
whether to view reports at step 1555. If so, the EIC selects "View
Reports" at step 1556, whereupon the system 300 displays a list of
reports at step 1557. The EIC then selects a report from that list
at step 1558, and the system 300 displays a report window at step
1559. The EIC is then prompted by the system 300 with the question
whether to show the next/previous page of the report at step 1560.
If so, the EIC selects "Next/Previous Page" at step 1561, the
system 300 refreshes the report window at step 1562, and the
process continues as long as the EIC desires.
[0120] The EIC may also perform user administration. As shown in
FIG. 15(h), the system prompts the EIC at step 1563 with the
question whether to perform user administration. If so, the EIC
selects "User Administration" at step 1564, whereupon a user list
is displayed by the system at step 1565. The system 300 then
prompts the EIC with the question whether to add a user at step
1566. If so, the system 300 then prompts the EIC with the questions
whether to create an account. If the EIC does not want to add a
user, then the system 300 prompts the EIC with the question whether
to edit a user at step 1569. The EIC then edits the user
information at step 1570 and the system 300 saves it.
Alternatively, the system 300 may prompt the EIC with the question
whether to delete a user at step 1571. The EIC then selects
"Delete" and the system 300 then displays a delete confirmation
window at step 1573. The system 300 also prompts the EIC at step
1574 with the question whether to search the list. If so, a
determination is made at step 1575 whether to view all/refresh that
list. Other search strategies and administrative means are
available to the EIC and shown in FIGS. 15(i), 15(j), and
15(k).
Editor Module
[0121] An Associate (or Review) Editor have the ability to assign
reviewers (or referees) to review each manuscript for publication.
Access to specifically assigned manuscript information and its
electronic file is instantly available upon assignment from the
Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer assignments is facilitated through the
use of a searchable, reviewers' database, with search fields for
name, key words, and area of expertise. Each reviewer's personal
information, number of assignments, and manuscript review history
is displayed before initial invitation to review. The number of
assignments will vary per client and is customizable; furthermore,
the ability to remove or change assignments is available until a
final decision is rendered on the manuscript. Invitations will be
made via e-mail communication. All e-mails in the system is
editable before sending, in each center (except any
system-generated, auto-e-mails). The AE should also have the
ability to render an immediate decision on any manuscript, which in
turn will render a decision e-mail to the corresponding author, and
populate the database in all of the appropriate locations, such as
each individual manuscript history.
[0122] The role of the AE is to manage the peer review of each
assigned manuscript. The AE must utilize the available manuscript
and reviewer data to make the appropriate selections based on
expertise and workload, and maintain the ability to make changes to
assignments up until decision. The AE also has the ability to
render final decisions, and access all of the history of every
submitted manuscript assigned to him or her only. Any e-mail from
any center is editable so stock wording can be customized as
necessary; this is especially useful for decision e-mails.
[0123] The AE should have the ability to grant access to each
reviewer that agrees to review. This access is limited to the
specific manuscript that the reviewer has agreed to review, and
initiated a button that send an e-mail to the reviewer alerting him
or her of the confirmed assignment. This access is removable by the
AE at any time until a final decision is rendered. If a reviewer
declines to review, is not needed, or accepts late and is no longer
required for review, the AE has similar e-mails to select that mark
the reviewer and manuscript history appropriately. Limited and
specific access is paramount to the security required for peer
review, and the AE controls this access based on the responses
received from reviewers. Marking the reviewer response and
performance is also crucial to the peer review process, as
monitoring performance will dictate future selections and improve
the quality of the reviewer database.
[0124] When revisions of previously submitted manuscripts are
submitted, they should flow directly to the AE's center for
re-assignment. Revisions appear behind a separate menu item than
original submissions in the AE Menu. A complete history of the
manuscript and its revision (s), including the reviewer and editor
comments attributed to each version, will accompany each revision
in the manuscript history. Any comments in reply to the editor or
reviewers from the author are also displayed. Reviewers that have
indicated a willingness to review the revision is automatically
invited, and only need to be marked as agreed to gain access to the
revision. The process should proceed as normal from that point on,
and includes the ability to remove or change reviewer assignments
until a final decision is rendered. The revision process does not
need to flow through the Administration center like an initial
submission. The AE may assume control over the final decision on
revisions, and their peer review. Reviewers do not need to be
invited to review manuscripts they have already indicated they will
review, but the ability to remove or change assignments remains.
All comments, versions, and data surrounding a manuscript are
essential to a fair review and decision.
[0125] While the ability to make a decision is available to the AE
at any time during the process, the AE has the ability within the
reviewer assignment area to render decisions based upon reviewer
recommendations. Decision options are presented, and a decision
e-mail is presented including the reviewer comments; this e-mail is
editable, then sent to the corresponding author, with assigned
reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief, and the Administrative center
copied on the notification, which is written to the database at
that time. The AE typically makes the final decision on manuscripts
and generates the decision letter. The database is marked
accordingly, with all associated dates included. All other
associated parties need to be notified of the decision, and an
acceptance will initiate the production process.
[0126] The AE has access to all assigned manuscripts and manuscript
histories through a multi-field search function in AE center. The
history should include but not be limited to the following: all of
the steps of the peer review process and their dates of completion,
all comments and reviews associated with the manuscript, all
descriptive information about the manuscript, its assigned
reviewers and associated dates of response and assignment, and any
correspondence associated with the manuscript. In order to support
users and assist in the management of the peer review process, the
ability to search for any manuscript and display its history is
vital to the success of the system and the communication with its
users. For the AE, this information is mainly relevant in the
monitoring of reviewer performance for timely decision-making.
[0127] The AE has numerous reports and listings available via links
in the AE Menu and in the Reports Menu. The reports and listings
can be customized per client, but several standard items are
included with the system. Samples of listings include but are not
limited to accepted and rejected manuscripts and outstanding
revisions assigned to each specific AE only. Samples of reports
include reviewer listings, reviewer performances, and outstanding
reviews. All reports and listings are vital to the management and
subsequent tracking of and periodic reporting on the process of
peer review, along with the rendering of timely decisions.
[0128] The AE has the ability to add to, maintain, edit, and update
the user database on a limited basis. The database is searchable by
name, key word, and area of expertise. The AE can garner and add
new reviewers by accessing the author's suggested reviewers
listing, and otherwise assist in the maintenance of the user
database. Other than reviewer status, however, the AE cannot grant
access rights or user IDs and Passwords. A searchable database will
facilitate its manipulation and information retrieval.
[0129] Much of the above is provided by means similar to the
processes shown in regards to the EIC. For example, the editor
center menu is similar in many respects to the EIC menu. FIGS.
16(a) through 16(e) illustrate those methods which are
different.
[0130] Beginning at the editor center menu 1601, the system prompts
an editor at step 1602 whether to assign reviewers. If not, the
system 300 then prompts the editor with the question whether to
view manuscripts at step 1609. Otherwise, the system 300 prompts
the editor with the questions whether the manuscripts to be viewed
are new manuscripts or revised manuscripts. The editor then selects
the appropriate type of manuscripts at steps 1604 or 1607, and the
list of such manuscripts is displayed by the system 300 at steps
1605 or 1608. In either case, the editor is then prompted by the
system 300 with the question whether to view the manuscript details
at step 1610. The editor then selects "View Manuscript Details" at
step 1611, and the system 300 displays those details at step 1612.
Specific methods of assignment or removal of the reviewers are
shown in FIGS. 16(b) through 16(d). Moreover, methods in which the
EIC finalizes any decisions are shown in FIG. 16(e).
Reviewer Module
[0131] Reviewers (or Referees), once responding positively to
e-mail inquiries about the review a manuscript, have the ability to
access the electronic file of the specific manuscript agreed to,
and all of its related and relevant information. Reviewers have the
ability to print out the manuscript as well. Any manuscripts in
need of review will appear in an ordered listing by manuscript
number. Reviewers need quick access to the manuscript and its data,
and typically need to print the manuscript for closer review and
notes. Manuscript number, along with other related data (such as
title and author(s)) identifies E-mail communications concerning
manuscript review, in order to ensure an accurate and secure review
process.
[0132] Reviewers will have links to instructions for review and all
of the necessary manuscript information. Understanding what is
required for review and the background data related to a manuscript
enables the opportunity for a fair and successful review, while
allowing for exceptions, such as conflict of interest, to be noted
immediately to the managing editor.
[0133] When reviewing revisions of previously submitted
manuscripts, reviewers have access to the following: all of the
manuscript versions and their associated data, any comments or
responses from the author(s) to the reviewers and the Associate
Editor, the original decision letter(s) including all editor and
reviewer comments, and any of their own original reviews and
comments. In order to complete a fair review, all manuscript
versions, data, editor and review comments, and original reviews
are necessary for reference and consideration.
[0134] Reviewers have a client-approved score sheet for scoring the
manuscript, comment boxes for detailed remarks, and recommendation
options for the manuscript decision, data that is carried into and
displayed with the manuscript's history. Judgment on adherence to
specific client policies are also available, along with the other
possible client-specific recommendations, and the notation of
willingness to review and possible revisions of the manuscript, all
of which is also displayed with the manuscript's history.
[0135] Reviewers have the ability to compose their remarks in a
word processor and copy and paste them into the review forms. They
then have the option to reset their review and start over; save
their review and return to it; or submit their review the Associate
Editor and automatically remove their access to the manuscript
pending further notice. Reviewers need the ability to begin a
review, leave it for any reason, and then return to it when
convenient. They also may wish to reconsider and revise their
review before finally submitting it. Once it is finally submitted,
access to the manuscript are removed to ensure manuscript
confidentiality.
[0136] The methods of reviewing manuscripts in accordance with the
present invention are shown in FIG. 17. Starting at a display of
reviewer instructions at step 1701, the reviewer is prompted with
the question whether to view the details of manuscripts assigned to
him/her. If so, the reviewer selects "View Manuscript Details" at
step 1703, and those manuscript details are displayed by the system
300 at step 1704. The reviewer may also be prompted by the system
whether to return to the list of manuscripts (step 1705) or return
to the reviewer menu (step 1706).
[0137] In the event those questions are answered in the negative,
the reviewer is then prompted with the question whether to view the
manuscript proof at step 1707. If so, the reviewer selects a title
at step 1708, and the proof is displayed at step 1709. In the event
that the reviewer did not want to view a proof, the system 300
prompts the reviewer with the question whether to reset the review
form at step 1710. If so, the system 300 blanks out the review
fields at step 1711 and the reviewer may start all over. If not,
the system prompts the reviewer at step 1712 whether to save the
review form. If so, a determination is made at step 1713 whether to
leave the form open (i.e., remain outstanding for review). If not,
the system 300 prompts the reviewer whethe to submit at step 1714.
If so, the reviewer then selects "Submit" at step 1715, the system
300 removes the title from the list of manuscripts at step 1716.
Preferably, in all cases, a plurality of reviewers are used to
review each submitted manuscript.
Miscellaneous Requirements
[0138] Some clients should process the final decision on a
manuscript through either the Editor-in-Chief center or a separate
center reserved for editorial board members. Associate (or Review)
Editor decisions is considered preliminary, and the EIC or
editorial board have the ability to make the preliminary decision
final, or recommend and implement a change of that preliminary
decision. All decisions and their accompanying data (such as date
of final decision) are written accordingly in the database. Some
clients prefer to consider the recommendation of the assigned
Associate (Or Review) Editor before having their EIC, a group of
editors, or a predetermined editorial board make a final, official
decision on a manuscript concerning publication. All of this data
is tracked in the database for reporting.
[0139] The listing of manuscripts with preliminary decisions is
generated with a date range query, and provide access to the
electronic file of each manuscript, along with all of its
historical data and associated reviewers, scores, comments, and
(editable) preliminary decision letters. The final decisions will
be rendered on a regular schedule and the data needs to drawn
accordingly. All of the relevant versions of the manuscript and
their historical data need to be available to ensure a fair
decision is made. If the preliminary decision is approved, the
accompanying decision letter may need some revision before being
sent.
System Details
[0140] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, system
100 runs as an Internet-based application, using a conventional web
server (e.g., the Apache HTTP server, version 1.3) which is
compiled with PHP. The Apache server, as is well known, consists of
voluntary contributions made by many individuals on behalf of the
Apache Group. It was originally based on public domain software
written at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. For more information on
the Apache Group and the Apache HTTP server project, please see
<<http://www.apache.org>>.
[0141] As is also well known, PHP is a server-side scripting
language for creating dynamic web pages. When a visitor opens the
page, the server processes the PHP commands and then sends the
results to the visitor's browser, just as with ASP (i.e., "Active
Server Pages", a feature available to users of the Microsoft
Internet Information Server (IIS)) or ColdFusion (a product
developed by Allaire Corporation, Cambridge, Mass. U.S.A.). Unlike
ASP or ColdFusion, however, PHP is an "open source" and
cross-platform. PHP runs on Windows NT and many UNIX versions, and
it can be built as an Apache module and as a binary that can run as
a CGI. When built as an Apache module, as in accordance with the
present invention, PHP is especially lightweight and speedy.
Alternatively, system 100 may run as an Internet-based application
on the RedHat LINUX version 6.1, with an Intel-based operating
system.
[0142] System 100 should also preferably support the limitations of
browsers such as the Netscape version 4.x and Internet Explorer
versions 4.x and 5.x. Browser versions must support certain
features, like JavaScript, and limitations are determined to ensure
minimum requirements for system functionality. The relational
database application is MySQL. SendMail is the e-mail server
implemented into the system, since SendMail interfaces with PHP,
and can send e-mails with altered headers.
[0143] System 100 are also able to read and parse Rich Text Format
("RTF") documents, which users upload into the system 100. RTF is
one conventional format that authors will use for their manuscripts
that they upload, and the system 100 must read and parse this
format to perform format conversions. Additionally, the system 100
is able to read PDF documents that users upload into the system
100. PDF is another conventional format that authors will use for
their manuscripts that they upload, and the system 100 must read
and display this format so system users can view submitted
manuscript's online. Yet another document format that the system
100 is able to read and parse is PostScript. PostScript is a widely
used format that authors will use for their manuscripts that they
upload. Accordingly, the system 100 must read and parse this format
to perform format conversions.
[0144] The system 100 is able to convert uploaded manuscripts to
web-based (e.g., HTML) and PDF formats. These conventional formats
are typically used for presentation purposes, so that system users
can view submitted manuscripts online. Similarly, the system 100 is
able to convert web-based pages into PDF format, to allow for
consistent printing of web-based manuscripts, report screens, and
other selected web pages desired and/or required for printing.
[0145] The system 100 should support text and special characters
entered into web forms. Users will, thus, be able to enter metadata
into web forms either by typing directly or copying and pasting
from word processors for text) or entering specified codes for
special characters. This data will then be captured in the database
101 and displayed for presentation or other purposes.
[0146] The system 100 is able to accept various image formats
(e.g., GIF, TIF, MPEG, PNG) that users upload into the system 100.
This is due to the fact that users will upload a variety of image
formats for figures, tables, graphs, and equations that supplement
the text of their manuscripts. The system 100 must, accordingly,
read these formats to perform format conversions to JPEG (.jpg)
files for online presentation and display.
[0147] Preferably, the system 100 is able to submit a user-entered
credit card number to an automated credit checking service online
via the Internet. When users enter credit card numbers to purchase
service, pay a fee, etc., the credit card are authorized. The
system 100 are also able to read and parse the results from a
credit checking service when it responds to a credit card number
submission. Before providing users with what they are attempting to
acquire or otherwise pay for, the system 100 must correctly
identify that their credit card is valid.
Creating an Account
[0148] For publishers who wish to allow users to create their own
accounts when they first access the system 100, a defined process
is implemented to gather information from users and then create a
user account with a defined level of access to the system.
Administrative personnel will have the opportunity to grant
additional access to specific users whenever necessary. When users
opt to create an account by clicking on the Create An Account
button 505 (or any other similar such linked field), they will be
shown a window that prompts for information about the user. A
typical window 600 prompting a user for information is shown in
FIG. 6. Publishers may choose to make specific fields optional or
required, and may choose to remove or add a field to this page.
Required fields are indicated with bold typeface. Instructions 601
are also provided.
[0149] A plurality of fields 602 initially prompt the user for name
information (e.g., Salutation (e.g., Dr., Mr.); First Name; Middle
Initial; Last Name; Suffix (e.g., Jr., Esq.)). The publisher
preferably determines which of these fields is present and which
ones is mandatory. First Name and Last Name should always be
required. A plurality of other fields 603 prompt the user for other
information. For example, the Institution fields prompt the user
for institution affiliation (e.g., Institution name and Department
name). Various other contact information prompt for user's location
and other contact information (e.g., Address 1; Address 2; City;
State; Zip; Country (which may be drop down); Phone; Fax; E-mail;
2.sup.nd E-mail). The 2.sup.nd E-mail address includes a radio
button option to specify whether this address is used for e-mail
communications.
[0150] In addition to such contact information, window 600 may
include the following. User Index Information fields (not shown)
prompt for user's professional interests and associations. This can
be especially helpful for example, to allow other users to search
upon users' interests and expertise. A Key Words field permits
users to enter as many key words that describe him/herself as
desired. These key words are separated by commas or by carriage
returns. A Membership Information field in the form of a Yes/No
radio button selection lets the user specify if he/she is a member
of the client organization, and the user ID field lets a user enter
a preferred user ID.
[0151] If a user enters a preferred user ID, the system will verify
that user ID has not already been selected by another user. If so,
the user will be prompted to enter another ID. If the user does not
enter a user ID, then the system will create an ID, which typically
is based on the user's e-mail address (which is usually a required
field). A Submit Information button may be used to permit the user
to get a user account when all the required fields are filled out.
Selecting this button will verify that the user fills out all
required fields. If all required fields are appropriately filled
out, then all entered information will be saved and the user will
be taken to the next window in the process of creating an account.
A Return to the Log-In Screen button can be used to allow a user to
return to the Log In window without requesting a new user account.
However, selecting this option will discard any information the
user has entered into any of the fields.
Entering the System
[0152] When the system 100 users successfully log in to the system,
they will be shown a main menu 700 as shown in FIG. 7. Specific
main menu options that are displayed to the user depend upon the
user's level of access as determined by his or her member
organization or society 701. Each of the possible menu options are
called centers, and each center is associated with a particular
role of the various types of end-users for whom the system 100 is
intended.
[0153] The main menu window 700 provides a user with options to
centers that correspond to the various roles they perform in the
submission, peer review and decision-making processes facilitated
by the system 100. Brief instructions 702 are typically found at
the top of the main menu window 700. An Author center field 703 is
a hyperlink to the Author center module 106 (FIG. 1). This link
takes users to the module where manuscripts may be submitted for
consideration for publishing. Most users will have access to this
module. This is the lone, default center to which users are given
access when they create their own user account. A Reviewer center
field 704 is a hyperlink to the Reviewer center module 109. This
link takes users to the module where they may open, review, make
comments on, and rate manuscripts on which they are tasked as
reviewers. Users who are slated as potential manuscript reviewers
will be provided with this link. An Editor center field 705 is a
hyperlink to the Editor center module 110. This link takes users to
the module where they may assign and coordinate reviewers for a
manuscript, and make decisions as to whether a manuscript is
approved or rejected. An Editor-In-Chief center field 706 is a
hyperlink to the Editor-In-Chief center module 108. This link takes
users to the module where they may assign manuscripts to editors
and manage user accounts, and is typically only accessible to the
one individual who the Editor-In-Chief for the particular journal.
An Admin Center field 707 is a hyperlink to the administrative
module 107. This link takes users to the module where they may
administer user accounts, manage system behavior, and view reports
on manuscript submission and review status. An Exit System button
714 is a button that users can select to log out and exit the
system 100. Selecting this button logs a user out of the system 100
and returns the user to the Log In window.
[0154] Referring now to FIG. 18, a flowchart illustrating a special
character translation application which may used in the system and
methods according to the present invention will now be explained.
The system 300 first inspects submitted manuscripts for special
character fonts at step 1801. That is, some authors may choose to
use "custom" or non-standard fonts which include special characters
not recognized by standard word processing formats (e.g., RTF). The
system 300 includes a look-up table (not shown) of known
conversions for such custom and non-standard fonts, and at step
1802 system 300 looks up any special characters detected upon the
inspection carried out at step 1801. It then inserts translated
codes (which themselves are standard) from the look-up table at
step 1803, and maps the manuscript with the translated codes to a
new file at step 1804.
[0155] Various modifications of the methods and systems disclosed
herein above are possible without departing from the true spirit
and scope of the present invention. For example, in the foregoing
description where the use of the phrase " . . . the system 300
prompts the user with the question that . . . ", other means such
as buttons and hyperlinks may provide this functionality. It is
understood, therefore, that within the scope of the following
claims, the present invention may be practiced otherwise than as
has been specifically described in the foregoing embodiments.
* * * * *
References