Challenges in the Selection, Design and Implementation of an Online Submission and Peer Review System for STM Journals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Two international scientific publishers collaborated to develop an Online Submission and Peer Review System (OSPREY) for their journals. Our goals were to meet market demand, increase editorial efficiency and streamline the transition from peer review to publishing. One of the publishers (National Research Council (NRC) Research Press, Canada) had previously purchased a third-party system that was subsequently discontinued by the vendor. Because of this experience and its complex requirements, we decided to build rather than buy a new system. The collaboration with the second publisher, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Publishing, Australia, allowed sharing of resources within a common vision and goals. Agile development through the use of iterations allowed us to continuously add functionality, make improvements and incorporate new requirements. The development team included technical staff as well as stakeholders, future users, business analysts and project managers. The architecture chosen was based on open source technologies, with Java servlets and Java Server Pages for the Web interface. OSPREY currently supports 32 journals at the two publishers. Users accomplish all regular tasks in peer review (submission, selection and invitation of reviewers, submission of review, recommendations and decision) through the software. Editorial staff verifies submissions, sends correspondence and assigns customizable roles and tasks. All tasks are accomplished through a Web browser accessing the application on central servers at the publisher, with no special software or configuration required for any users. Currently, the system integrates with the publishing system by generating manuscript metadata in an XML format, although closer integration with a workflow management system is planned. Since OSPREY implementation, the number of submissions has risen, although marketing and higher ranking of the journals are also factors. For the future, we plan to add new functionality for business tasks and for parsing, tagging and linking of article references.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it