A variety of software tools are now available that enable the electronic management of peer review processes for scholarly journals. These tools promise to facilitate efficient and centralized control and/or supervision by journal staff of the submission, assignment, tracking and publication of articles though the web, as well as enabling a central archive of various tasks performed....The specialized features available vary widely, but the more highly developed programs share many characteristics....Despite their different “bells and whistles,” the workflow process is relatively constant across most of the software reviewed here. This no doubt reflects the relatively standard elements of peer review processes across multiple journals. That said, a primary concern for editors is the adaptability of any software to the idiosyncrasies of their process. However, editors may not appreciate the extent to which their processes resemble those of other journals.
From an OA perspective, the chief benefit of peer-review management software is the way it automates the clerical tasks of conducting peer review, the primary cost of runnning a peer-reviewed OA journal. Of course it doesn't touch editorial judgment, but that is typically performed by editors and referees who (like authors) donate their labor.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 8/28/2006 10:20:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
