Review of some peer-review management packages

Kam Shapiro, Bibliography and Summary: Electronic Peer Review Management, University of Michigan Scholarly Publishing Office. Undated. (Thanks to ResourceShelf.) Excerpt:

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.

Comments.

1. This review doesn't cover any of the open-source packages. To add them to your own review of the available tools, start with Open Journal Systems (the leader in this niche), but also take a look at DPubS, GAPworks, Hyperjournal, ePublishing Toolkit, OpenACS, SOPS, and TOPAZ.
2. 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.