Elsewhere:
Application Programming Interface. In the case of the RQC API, the 'application' is a journal MHS that wants to submit reviewing data to RQC.
Represents an author of a submission to a journal. Authors may be asked to grade the Reviews' "Helpfulness for Authors" aspect.
If, for a given Submission S, there are Reviews A, B, C (coming from Reviewers A, B, C), then from the perspective of reviewer A, reviewers B and C are his or her Co-Reviewers and their Reviews are Review A's Co-Reviews.
A Reviewer who created a Co-Review.
An RQC for a single instance of a conference (or one track of a larger conference). Created and managed by an Organizer.
The worlds of Conferences on the one hand and Publishers and Journals on the other are largely separate in RQC.
Demo mode is a mode of a login session. It is meant for trying out RQC in order to understand how it works. Any login session is either in demo mode or not in demo mode for its entire duration.
The following is different in demo mode:
We recommend that two users team up to try out RQC, to have somebody to discuss with. This accelerates learning and opinion-forming. They will create one Publisher and one or perhaps two Journals, and play around with them until satisfied.
A person (identified by an email address) mentioned as having an editor role
in a Review Case that an MHS submits to RQC via the API.
Editors can be level-1 ("handling editor"),
level-2 ("section editor"), or
level-3 ("chief editor"),
and any number of each type can occur in a Review Case.
Most journals have no level-2 editors at all. Editorship pertains to a single Review Case, not a whole Journal or Subjournal.
Typically, journals will require level-1 Editors to grade the Reviews of a case and will allow other editors to also grade them.
A User performing a Grading.
The process of applying a Review quality definition to a Review Case as well as the outcome of that process. The process is performed by filling in (for each review of the case) the questionnaire defined by the "Helpfulness for Decision" and "Helpfulness for Authors" aspects of the Review quality definition.
Each Subjournal decides which of the five possible groups of graders (Co-Reviewers, level-1/2/3 Editors, Authors) are asked to grade and how intensively (CAN, PLEASE, PLEEASE).
There are five different groups of people that can grade a review: Co-Reviewers, level-1/2/3 Editors, and Authors. Each journal decides which of these groups will actually be asked to grade (their "grading requirement") and how intensively:
PLEEASE: Will receive a notification and multiple reminders.
PLEASE: Will receive one notification.
CAN: Will not be notified, but can find the grading task in their worklist.
CANNOT: This group will not be able to grade.
There can be different grading requirements for the first member of a group that performs a grading and all subsequent members. For instance, if grading requirements for level-3 Editors are PLEEASE/PLEASE, then all level-3 Editors will keep getting reminders until the first of them supplies a grading, after which no further reminders will be sent to any of them, but the grading task will still show in the PLEASE worklist of all other level-3 Editors.
The representation of a journal in RQC. Corresponds to one journal in one Manuscript handling system (MHS). Once the MHS has submitted a Review Case to RQC, the handling editor or an RQGuardian will assign it to a Subjournal for grading.
Short: MHS.
A software that handles reviewing processes and collects reviews.
For Conferences, RQC will grab the full set of reviewing data from the MHS
at a specified time.
For Journals, the MHS will submit reviewing data separately for each submission
via RQC's API.
see Manuscript handling system
A person who creates and manages an RQC for a Conference.
The home organization for a number of Journals in RQC. Represents an actual publisher in the real world. Creating a Publisher
A person working at a Publisher and authorized for Publisher-level operations in RQC. In particular, the creation of a journals representation in RQC is performed by a Publisherperson.
A User that can download a table describing a set of Receipts on behalf of some Research Institution.
An entity (typically a university or some part of a university) to which Reviewers can assign their Receipts.
Represents the information about a single submission that is sent by a Manuscript handling system to RQC. Contains the following information: Submission title, identifier, and Authors; Review texts and Reviewers; involved Editors; various timestamps.
A service for providing reviewers with tangible proof of their reviewing amount and quality.
When used with an article ("an RQC"), it refers to one of the many bins within RQC in which review gradings are collected. Each RQC produces a set of Receipts independent of the others. There are two types of RQCs: Conferences and Subjournal Years.
See RQdef.
The main output of RQC. Each receipt talks about the reviewing work of one Reviewer in one year at one Journal (or Conference). It shows how many reviews the reviewer performed, their individual grades, and how the reviewer ranks overall. It also explains the underlying Review Quality Definition.
A person submitting a review (and possibly several) about one Submission to a journal or conference.
The part of the RQC software implementation that provides functionality for conferences: Reviewing data is pulled from a conference MHS all at once and review grading occurs in batch mode up to a deadline.
The part of the RQC software implementation that provides functionality for publishers and journals: Reviewing data is submitted actively by a journal MHS case-by-case and review grading occurs gradually over time. Review batches for which receipts are issued are formed per calendar year; see Subjournal year.
The declarative description of a procedure for computing a review grading score, the key element from which Receipts are computed. See the description of the RQC grading system.
An Editor who evangelizes Editor colleagues at a journal about RQC, who decides the Review Quality Definition to be used at a Journal, and who performs review gradings as a fallback if nobody else does. Each journal has two to six RQguardians.
Each Submission to a Journal in RQC gets assigned to one Subjournal. Each Subjournal can have a different Review Quality Definition. Each Subjournal issues its own set of Receipts, separate from the other Subjournals at the same Journal.
At Journals, a Receipt covers one calendar year. Therefore, the 'bin' in which reviews are collected and within which the reviewers compete in the ranking is the Subjournal Year.
An item submitted by Authors to a Journal or Conference and reviewed by Reviewers. Typically, a Submission is an article, but it could also be a software artifact, a data set, or some other thing that gets reviewed and published.
A person using RQC. Users can be registered (i.e., have an account) or unregistered. Registered users can be logged-in or not logged in. Visitors, Authors, and Reviewers do not need to log in, all other roles do.
A user that has no account or is not logged in and that does not currently act in the Author or Reviewer role.