|Product name||Brief description||Company||Contact person||Does the product support the publication of peer review reports? Is this a core service, available for an additional charge, or does it require custom development?||Example journals implementing published peer review using the product||Does the product support collecting information about co-reviewers (additional people who help a referee perform peer review?)||Example journals collecting information about co-reviewers using the product||Does the product support additional peer review innovations (eg blinding, interactive review, etc)? How much can the peer review workflow be customized?||Example journals implementing peer review innovations with the product||Does the product support MECA?|
|Transparent Peer Review||Combined manuscript tracking system and transparent peer review workflow||Publons, ScholarOne||Tiago Barros (firstname.lastname@example.org)||The entire peer review process, including reviewer reports, author responses and editor decision letters can be published using this product. Each element of the peer review process is assigned an individual DOI, linked to the article DOI. Author opt in/our and revewer anonymity preferences are collected automatically. Custom development not required, other than surfacing the relevant questions to authors and reviewers in the respective submission forms. Transparent Peer Review was developed in partnership with Wiley and will be opening this to a second phase of participants in May.||Clinical Genetics||This is available in ScholarOne, but not yet launched as part of the Transparent Peer Review initiative.||N/A||Authors can opt-in or out of Transparent Peer Review, subject to relevant journal policies; Reviewers can sign or remain anonymous; each individual peer review content has its own DOI; each piece of peer review content can be endorsed and commented on by registered Publons users. Automated and scaleable solution to publish peer review content.||Clinical Genetics||Working on it|
|Publons Reviewer Recognition||Peer review platform||Publons||Tiago Barros (email@example.com)||Gives reviewers ability to display their reports, where journal policy allows.||GigaScience, BMJ Open, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences and many other||Yes||Available to all journals||- Post-publication discussions and endorsements.|
- Verified peer review records.
|eJournalPress||Manuscript tracking system||eJournalPress||Anna Jester||Yes, the EJPress online manuscript submission and peer review system supports the publication of peer review reports.|
Some of our clients include text in the email thanking reviewers for their review including instructions for how to send the information to Publons to have it recorded with their Publons profile. We also have clients who include information on how to add the review to their ORCID iD, including a link to start that process. Each of these two options is available at no additional charge for our customers.
Additionally, we work with a journal who includes the decision letter (including peer reviewer comments) in the metadata which is exported for accepted manuscripts and subsequently published on the journal's online publishing platform.
Separately, we work with an organization who requested custom development allowing the creation of a Peer Review Process File which includes referee reports and is published with articles on their online publishing platform.
|eJournalPress only provides information about our clients, and products used, with the client’s permission.||Yes, a question can be added to the review form to collect this information from reviewers.||eJournalPress only provides information about our clients, and products used, with the client’s permission.||Yes. The EJPress system supports single-blind, double-blind, transparent, and open peer reivew. The system also supports Consultation Sessions which allow a journal-defined group of participants to participate in the process. The peer review workflow can be customized via thousands of variables and options, and customers are continually requesting custom development, increasing the customization potential.||eJournalPress only provides information about our clients, and products used, with the client’s permission.||EJPress does work with clients who use MECA to transfer information between journals. |
We also would note that the NISO working group which is continuing the work MECA started may result in changes to MECA.
|Editorial Manager||Manuscript tracking system||Aries Systems||Yes, Editorial Manager has several different ways to export peer review reports to production systems and to publishing platforms. It is a core service and there is no additional charge. Reviewers can opt in or ask to remain anonymous.||Yes, the publication can request this information from the reviewer as part of the review submission process.||Editorial Manager supports single blind, double blind, transparent peer review and open peer review. There is of course various ways to interpret these different forms of peer review, and EM has several different configurations that allow different shades of the above. For example, the publication can configure their system to allow reviews to be exposed to other reviewers during the peer review process, or to expose those reviews after a decision. Publications can allow reviewers to participate in an open "discussion forum" where editors and reviewers can have an ongoing dialogue about a manuscript.||Yes, we have the current version of MECA available for both importing and exporting manuscripts to other systems, including other submission systems, preprint servers, and production systems. Aries is one of the originating organizations and currently participates in the NISO process to make MECA a NISO recommended practice.|
|BenchPress||Manuscript tracking system||HighWire||Eric Hall||BenchPress supports the publication of peer review reports. This is not yet a core service because there are a multitude of methods for sharing reviewer comments and the industry has not yet decided on a standard. For example, some journals want to share reviewer comments from each version of a submission; others only want to share the reviewer comments from the last version of a submission; still others want to collate all reviewer comments into one. Because of these variations, BenchPress does not have an off-the-shelf solution. We pride ourselves on customization and typically custom develop a solution that fits each publisher's needs and workflow.||Company of Biologists journals||Yes, but not as standard.||MECA transfers!||You bet! We have implemented MECA in several ways that will require more space (and time!) to explain.|
|Silverchair||Publishing platform||Silverchair||Will Schweitzer||Yes, the Silverchair Platform supports the publication of peer review reports as supplements to articles.||NA||NA|
|xPub||Manuscript submission and peer review system||Coko||Alison McGonagle-O'Connell||xPub is not a single productized offering. Today, Libero Reviewer is eLife's expression of a PubSweet-based Manuscript Submission and Peer Review system. It is a work in progress. Similarly, Hindawi has developed their own xPub submission and review platform. It is possible to solicit, store, and make public (with reviewer permission) peer review reports according to journal policy. Today, neither of these platforms are doing this, but it is possible.||Yes. Because xPub is not a fixed entity, it can be developed to suit any workflow. It is certainly possible to configure a reviewer form that solicits information such as co-reviewer names, ORCID, and so on. You can see how, if this is configured, the journal could, for example, grant credit to all reviewers via ORCID Peer Review.||Yes. The Peer Review workflow is completely customizable for organizations developing within the PubSweet community. For example, some will leverage interactive HTML previews of the manuscript to enable review of an automatically typeset manuscript, and commenting/ annotation on it; some may experiment with blinding or more likely with collaborative open review.||Yes. Today, the eLife Libero Reviewer platform is MECA enabled, which allows the system to interact with the journal's legacy system from eJournalsPress (in addition to any other MECA-compliant system). Members of the PubSweet community build modularly and share their work. This means that any publisher entering the community today could work with eLife to understand and likely leverage their MECA integration work, giving them an advantage right from the start.|
|PubSweet||Foundation platform for use with modular components; headless CMS||Coko||Alison McGonagle-O'Connell||PubSweet is a foundational framework and community for building publishing platforms. For example, it sits beneath all xPub deployments, and also Editoria and the Wormbase micropublications platform. Using PubSweet, organizations can deploy their own technical resources in partnership with Coko to develop their own customized platform. In this way, PubSweet is totally open ended, and can be seen as a fertile ground from which any workflow can be grown, with plenty of experienced, insightful, and friendly gardening enthusiasts prepared to help. In future, we expect service providers to enter the community to support offering the system to organizations without development resources. At this point, for journals who choose that model, there could be options to customize from a 'vanilla' platform, and those options could cosst to develop/use. Ultimately, that service provder (or those service providers, as the case may likely be) will listen to its community to determine what should be included, and what the cost structure will be.||(See xPub row)||(See xPub row)||(See xPub row)||All workflows are completely customizable for organizations developing with the PubSweet community.||(See xPub row)||Yes. (See xPub row)|
|OJS||Manuscript tracking system & Publishing platform||Public Knowledge Project||John Willinsky firstname.lastname@example.org||We have worked with Murmurations and Hypothes.is to enable Open Journal Systems (OJS) to share with the publication of an artilce, the reviewers' comments on the submission, along with the reviewers names and date. There are plans to make it possible in OJS for each published items to carry a peer review report that would, at a minimum, include dates, number of reviewers and reciewer reports, while alllowing, at a maximum, for author and reviewers to permit the display of signed reviews, along with editor and author responses.||Murmurations journal integrates w hypothesis||Not at this point, but something to consider adding as part of the expanded reporting on peer review.||N/A||Supports single-blind, double-blind, and open (reviewers see author identities and vice versa) reviews. Reviews can be file uploads, free-form text, or structured forms designed by the journal manager. Supports and records "review discussion" initiated by editor with reviewers and/or authors.||Cultural Anthorpology||The current form of MECA is FTP-based, and that service requirement is prohibitive to our community. We support MECA's stated interest in moving to an API-based toolset, especially something like SWORD, which we already support.|
|Literatum||Publishing platform||Atypon||Eleni Lialiamou (email@example.com )||Literatum is Atypon’s publishing technology used by over 12,000 journals worldwide to host millions of scholarly records such as articles and books. Literatum can host multiple kinds of supplemental files including delivering peer review reports with articles, alongside metadata and fulltext. Development work is currently underway to enable a growing number of formats and file types to be published as part of the scholarly record. Literatum can and does integrate with peer review systems.||None at the moment||Not yet||None at the moment||Not at the moment||None at the moment||Currently working on MECA implementation|
|Scholastica||Platform for academic journals - peer review, website/article hosting, and article typesetting.||Scholastica||Danielle Padula (firstname.lastname@example.org)||Journals can publish peer review reports either as part of the article text or as supplemental files. Publishing any kind of text or supplemental file is a core service. Scholastica does not offer custom development on a journal-by-journal basis; rather, all functionality is available to all journals using the platform.||n/a||Yes, journals can add a question asking if there were any co-reviewers to the reviewer form.||n/a||Scholastica supports single and double blind. Scholastica is always building new functionality based on the needs of journals using the platform, so journals are welcome to share ideas for useful peer review innovations - just email email@example.com with your feature request.||n/a||Nope, but happy to consider building it if journals using Scholastica request it.|
|PubPub||Manuscript tracking system & Publishing platform||MIT||Gabe Stein (firstname.lastname@example.org)||In development. Planned for 2019. It will not require an additional charge or custom development.||It will, yes.||In development, planning to ultimately support a large range of review types and customizations.||Not currently on the roadmap, but we likely will support it down the road, since we're building out JATS support now.|
|Libero Publisher||Publishing platform||eLife||Paul Shannon (email@example.com)||This product supports the publication of peer review reports.||Examples of the Decision Letter and Author Response on eLife: https://elifesciences.org/articles/44341#SA1||It can do as it has an extensible data model and provides a JATS4R compliant data model.|
|F1000 Open Research Platforms||Manuscript tracking system & Publishing platform||F1000||Michael Markie||All peer review reports are published alongside the article and part of the core publishing service.||All the publishing platforms listed on Open Research Central (https://openresearchcentral.org/) use an open research publishing model - all of which publish peer review reports and the names of the reviewers.||Yes, all reviewers can invite co-reviewers for articles they are invited to review and all of the co-reviewers are named and published alongside the peer review report.||All the publishing platforms listed on Open Research Central (https://openresearchcentral.org/) enables the co-reviewers for peer review.||The peer review model is not customisable with regards to its modus operandi; its invited, named, open peer review that happens post-publication. All peer review reports are citable and recieve DOIs. We also have view metrics for each peer review report. We also have a direct link with ORCID where reviewers can easily add their peer review reports to their ORCID IDs. We will soon deploy an annotation function that will enable reviewers to annotate an article and align these annotatins with their peer review reports.||All the publishing platforms listed on Open Research Central (https://openresearchcentral.org/) enables dois, view counts and ORCID links for reviewers. All platforms will have the annotation feature when deployed later in the year.||Articles are not "rejected" on F1000 Open Research Platforms; the primary function is to review the article for scientific soundness and help authors improve thier work. All peer review reports are published, citable and an intrinsic part of an article's make up. In that sense all our reviews are published and there is no need for them to be exchanged with other publications. (However, we are supportive of the MECA initiative).|
|ReView||River Valley Technologies||Kaveh Bazargan||ReView supports the publication of peer review reports as a core service option. In addition ReView is integrated with Publons and ORCID. Publishers can elect to allow reviewers, if they so wish, to publish their reviews automatically on Publons or ORCID||The IET||Yes. ReView is flexible, allowing publishers to create any workflow as well as any number of custom fields. Any client defined role can be added, e.g. “co-reviewer”.||None have asked for the feature but it is available.||There is a discussion module that, if enabled by a journal, will allow reviewers as well as the editors to enter a discussion forum (and see one another's comments). By default the system allows reviewers to see others’ comments only after submission of their own review. This allows an EiC to discuss any issues with reviewers before making a final decision. All versions of “blinding” can be set using the workflow manager.|
There is no limit to the customization of workflows in ReView, which is carried out through a graphical workflow manager.
|Full implementation Q2 2019|
|ARPHA||Manuscript tracking system & Publishing platform||ARPHA||Pavel Stoev (firstname.lastname@example.org)||ARPHA supports publication of review in two ways: 1) Post-publication - logged in users can leave a review and fill in a review form, their complete contribution is published alongside the article. 2) Pre-publication peer review where review reports are published alongside the article with their own DOIs. We also have integrated with hypothes.is for annotation and commenting. ARPHA is also integrated with Publons and ORCID.||Research Ideas and Outcomes Journal (RIO) (https://riojournal.com) is an example for both features impelmented. Pre-publication openly published peer review example: https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e34087
All ARPHA journals have post-publication open review enabled via review forms. All journals are integrated with hypothes.is
An innovation of ARPHA is that in our Authoring tool while still in the writing stage authors can invite contributors (different from co-authors) such as supervisors, peers, linguistic editors, etc. to review and improve the manuscript. Furthermore, based on the public post-publication reviews authors can publish an updated version of their article linked via CrossMark with the original one.The peer review workflow is fully adjustable on demand of the journal we support both traditional (single-, double-blind) and innovative open peer review options.
RIO Journal - all innovations; All journals using the Authoring tool (XML workflow) - allow invitation of contributors at authoring stage.
|No, but we are interested to explore this initiative|
|sci.pe (science periodicals)||sci.pe is an all-inclusive platform (including submission management, peer review, production, journal homepage hosting, indexing and SEO) allowing editors to publish science periodicals transparently and at low cost (see: https://research.sci.pe/ballesteros2019)||sci.pe||Sébastien Ballesteros (email@example.com)||Yes, sci.pe supports the publication of reviews as well as the publication of the entire editorial workflow (as a core service, no additional charges or custom development). Publishing the entire workflow means that journals can provide readers with access to reviews, and every discussion made in context during each revision cycle. Editorial workflows are available to reader scrutiny (while respecting journal-defined anonymity and access control settings - see https://sci.pe/get-started/workflows#peer-review-anonymity and https://sci.pe/get-started/workflows#public-access). They are also formally defined (using open web standards), so the rules they contain can be provably enforced by machines.||n/a||Yes, this can be done several ways: 1) custom questions can be added to a review action to collect information about co-reviewers (see https://sci.pe/get-started/workflows#actions), 2) reviews can be made collaborative and each collaborator will be credited for their work (see https://sci.pe/get-started/workflows#participant), or 3) reviews of different types can be requested, such as a general and specialist review (e.g., for a data review).||n/a||We unleash editorial workflow innovation by letting editors create any workflow (https://sci.pe/get-started/workflows#creating-editorial-workflows) with any peer review blinding (https://sci.pe/get-started/workflows#peer-review-anonymity), no technical expertise or custom development required. This includes author or editor endorsement of reviews (facilitating a dialogue before the review is finalized), author discussion of an editor decision, reviewer remuneration, and triple blind review (allowing editors to invite reviewers with blinded identity), as a few examples.|
We also enable journals to formally specify publication types (https://sci.pe/get-started/publication-types-and-style-guides) and give journals the option to let authors pick an editorial workflow (from a list of eligible, journal-defined workflows for a type), e.g., so authors can decide between single or double blind review.
In addition to providing access to submitted files for review, the sci.pe user interface seeks to enhance the rigor and precision of peer review by providing direct, interactive access to the file contents (rendered as they will be at publication time) during every step of the editorial process.
Direct, interactive access to the content allows editors, reviewers and authors to seamlessly combine annotations and general comments while doing their work, taking advantage of the respective merits of these 2 feedback mechanisms (e.g., see https://sci.pe/get-started/editor-user-guide#write-revision-requests and https://sci.pe/get-started/author-and-reviewer-user-guide#write-reviews). Post publication, all articles on sci.pe contain human readable identifiers at the paragraph and resource level so that any part of the article can be precisely referenced and shared.
|The Journal of Global Health Leadership (https://joghl.sci.pe) setup their own workflow and publication types on sci.pe (see https://joghl.sci.pe/about/journal).||Not directly, as we believe that the future of scholarly publishing is web-first and science should be produced, published, and archived using open web standards directly supported by ordinary web browsers. As a result, content on sci.pe is archived in HTML, with RDFa / JSON-LD and schema.org markup (see sci.pe archiving format for details: https://sci.pe/get-started/archive). We do however support export to JATS when journals require it (e.g., for PUBMED deposit, manuscript transfer, etc.).|
|Janeway||Manuscript tracking system & Publishing platform||Birkbeck, University of London||Andy Byers (firstname.lastname@example.org)||Scheduled in 1.4, released w/c 15/04/19||A review form can be configured to ask for this information but we've added an issue to Github explore this more so we can record this information in the DB and search it more readily: https://github.com/BirkbeckCTP/janeway/issues/933,||Currently Janeway supports review forms, review documents and we are working on annotated reviews using Hypothesis private groups.||Scheduled in 1.4, released w/c 15/04/19|
|ScholarOne||Manuscript tracking system||Clarivate Analytics||Chris Heid (email@example.com)||The entire peer review process, including reviewer reports, author responses and editor decision letters can be published in collaboration with Publons as part of our Transparent Peer Rieview initiative. Each element of the peer review process is assigned an individual DOI, linked to the article DOI. Author opt in/our and revewer anonymity preferences are collected automatically. Custom development not required, other than surfacing the relevant questions to authors and reviewers in the respective submission forms. Transparent Peer Review was developed in partnership with Wiley and will be opening this to a second phase of participants in May.||Clinical Genetics||Yes, a question can be added to the review form to collect this information from reviewers.||Yes, for importing and exporting manuscripts, though not using the current MECA standard as it is still under development via the NISO working group. Clarivate is one of the organizations that initially worked to develop the MECA and actively participates in the NISO working group to develop a NISO recommended practice.|