ReView – intuitive and powerful peer review

“ReView’s refreshingly simple user interface, combined with River Valley’s intimate knowledge of scholarly content, gave us the confidence to choose River Valley over the competition.”
Sara Sharman, Head of Content Services at the IET

Our reassuringly user-friendly peer review system was first launched 5 years ago and is now used by a number of publishers. ReView is a “new generation” of software for submission and peer review. Built with scalability in mind, it can handle 1000s of users concurrently with no slow-down of the system. ReView is usable on any mobile device, and is fully configurable to a publisher’s workflow. Publishers can even set up new journals in-house without the need for a new installation or indeed any help from us. The interface is deceptively simple with no training required – users see only what they need to in order to get the job done. But below the surface lies a sophisticated engine that is blindingly fast, secure, and fully scalable.

Screen_Shot_2018-08-03_at_14_00_56
ReView being used on an iPad

Authors submit files in minutes

  • Log in with one click through ORCiD or through social media
  • Drag and drop files to submit
  • Combine any file formats, even Word and LaTeX
  • Single log-in for all journals
User friendly submission page of ReView
User friendly submission page of ReView

Editors and reviewers save time

  • Flexible commenting and discussion forums
  • See tasks for different roles of a user, conveniently set out on the same page
  • Extremely complex workflows with a simple interface
  • Wide range of integrations –bioRxiv (two-way), PublonsCASRAI CRediT, etc

Publishers have full control

  • Configured to each publisher’s exact needs
  • Get reports instantly for one journal, or combined for any set
  • New journals can be created in half an hour by publisher
  • Retrieve historical data with the click of a button
  • “Cascade” papers across publications with a single click
  • Change workflows, even for a single journal issue
  • Faithful ingestion of legacy data
  • Data owned by publisher

A better way