CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The present application claims priority to European Patent Application No. EP 18180215.8, filed on Jun. 27, 2018. The entirety of this patent application is incorporated by reference herein.

FIELD

The present invention deals with a computer-implemented method, apparatus, and system for providing a review process of a document.

BACKGROUND

In prior art, collaborative environments are known which, amongst others, allow users, for example, to ask other users, as other colleagues or services, for a review of a document. For example, a user has elaborated a technical document for which he or she needs feedback from other people that this technical approach is correct. For optimal results, the review process on the document may even be repeated for a couple of times.

Further, in prior art, many services in the applications domain are known that provide document collaboration environments. Some examples are Sharepoint provided by Microsoft, Google Docs provided by Google, etc. In such collaboration systems, a user may ask another user or even several other users for reviewing a document that he or she has drafted. Then, the selected reviewer or reviewers are enabled to access the document to be reviewed and to modify the document, for example, by adding comments or making corrections. Further, some collaborations systems or applications provide, for the reviewer or reviewers, a possibility for sending some kind of feedback to the user who created the document to be reviewed (in the following referred to the author or drafter) so as to notify him or her that the review process is completed. This, however, according to prior art applications, is the only information the author of the document to be reviewed will be able to receive on the review process.

SUMMARY

We have determined that, for the further editing of a document, it would be very beneficial for the author of the document to be reviewed to also receive an indication whether the reviewer has correctly, e.g. for example thoroughly, reviewed the document or not. Also, in a case where certain deadlines for submitting a document, as for example a paper or the like, have to be met, for the author who might already be pressed for time, also the progress of the review process might be essential information so as to plan the further processing.

Therefore, embodiments of our present invention can be based on the object to overcome the drawbacks in existing collaboration systems as outlined above. In particular, embodiments of the present invention can be based on the object to provide a computer-implemented method and a system for providing a review process of a document with the possibility of a feed-back. This object can be solved in embodiments of the present invention by use of an embodiment of a computer-implemented method for providing a review process of a document, a system for providing a review process of a document that can implement an embodiment of the method, and a communication apparatus that can be configured to implement an embodiment of the method. The communication apparatus can be an embodiment of the system or a component of an embodiment of the system.

Some embodiments of the method can be configured as a method for providing a review process of a document, which is provided by first client to at least one second client via a communications network to a document server where the document server comprises a central documentation system enabling document collaboration. Embodiments of the method can include: receiving, at the document server, the document to be reviewed from the first client; For example, the method can include utilization of a communication apparatus that can include a document server comprising a processor connected to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The document server can be connectable via a communications network to a first client, and can also be connectable via the communications network to a second client. The document server can be configured to receive a document from the first client. The document server can be configured to process the document to be reviewed that is received from the first client by creating a copy of the document to be reviewed and modifying the copy so the copy is a modified copy that includes predetermined typos and/or grammar errors. The document server can be configured to permit the second client to access the modified copy so as to start a review process for reviewing the document to be reviewed; determine a quality of the review process performed via the second client based on an extent to which the predetermined typos and/or grammar errors included in the modified copy are corrected via the second client during the review process, and transmit information related to the evaluated quality of the review process to the first client.

Embodiments of the method can permit the first user, (e.g. the author of the document to be reviewed), to be provided with information on the quality of the review process and thus, is enabled to evaluate whether the reviewer took a thorough look on the document to be reviewed or whether she or he just skimmed over the document.

According to a preferred embodiment, the method can also include processing the document to be reviewed prior to the step of providing access to the document. Preferably, the step of processing the document to be reviewed includes: creating a copy of the document to be reviewed and modifying the copy so as to comprise predetermined typos and/or grammar errors. By adding type-writing errors or grammar errors, the determination of whether a reviewer has read a document to be reviewed carefully or not can be made. Namely, for example, it may be determined how many of the added errors have been found by the reviewer and then have been corrected. If only few or no errors have been corrected in the reviewed document, then it is most likely that the reviewer has not made a good job and has only skimmed over the text, while overlooking the errors. If all or many errors have been corrected in the reviewed document, then, it may the reviewer has carefully read the document so that a good review quality will be assumed.

In some embodiments of the method, providing access to the document to be reviewed may include receiving log in data from the second client so as to log into the document server for accessing the document to be reviewed and starting the reviewing process. According to another preferred embodiment, the document server, upon receiving log-in data from the second client, provides access to the second client to the modified copy of the document to be reviewed. The original document to be reviewed will not contain the errors added by the document server and remains intact in this respect.

The document server (e.g. a computer device configured as a server that has at least one processor connected to a non-transitory computer readable medium and has at least one transceiver unit and/or interface for communicative connection to clients) can be configured to evaluate the quality of the review process by determining the number of typos and/or grammar errors detected and corrected in the modified copy by the second client. As mentioned above, the number of types and/or grammar errors provides an indication on the quality of the review process since the thoroughness of reading the text of the document to be reviewed can be deduced from this. Preferably, the typos and/or grammar errors are generated randomly. This can provide the advantage that, for example, in case of a reviewer being already used to the type of errors occurring in a document, the reviewer cannot foresee the latter so that he or she in this case will only make corrections, for example, at the expected passages in the text. Also, reviewers may not pass information on the type of added errors to other reviewers, who might shorten the review process to the expected passages, as mentioned above. According to still another preferred embodiment, the typos and/or grammar errors may also be generated on the basis of a reverse spelling check of the document to be reviewed, wherein the document server identifies past incorrectly written words automatically corrected by using the spelling check. The document server, when modifying the copy, can replace one or more of the thus corrected words by the original erroneous words. This may be advantageous in some embodiments because the reviewer will not get the impression of artificially added errors so that he or she might draw conclusions and reduce the corrections to these “artificial” errors by only reading the expected passages of the text. Rather, the text will appear natural and real, and the reviewer will not suspect that the quality of his or her work is monitored and assessed.

In some embodiments of the method, evaluating the quality of the review process may include determining the pace of reading of a reviewer of the document to be reviewed at the second client. The pace of reading may be detected, for example, by means of a reading pace detector implemented either in the document server or in the second client. By detecting the pace of reading of the reviewer, the state of completion of the review process may be determined as well which information may then be provided to the first client, namely, the author of the document to be reviewed. Thus, according to this embodiment it is enabled that whenever a review is requested, an indication will be provided to the author of the document to be reviewed of how far this review process has advanced and thus, whether it is progressing well or rather slow. The state of the review process can be very useful not only for the author of the document to be reviewed, but rather also, for example, to project management in an enterprise world in order to monitor the review process so as to be prepared for the date of document release. Since commonly a review is being performed by multiple parties, all statuses or states can be collected and consolidated into a final one that will enable the author of the document to be reviewed to view the overall review progress. Preferably, the document server can be configured to compare the pace of reading with predetermined values, in particular, with a predetermined range of values for the pace of reading, and if it is determined that the pace of reading lies within the predetermined range, then the quality of the review process is determined to be good, and if it is determined that the pace of reading lies outside of the predetermined range, then the quality of the review process is determined to be less good.

It can also be advantageous for some embodiments of the method to be configured so that the quality of the review process is determined continuously during the review process. For such embodiments, the result of the determination can be provided to the first client in real-time and updated in real-time.

According to yet another embodiment, the method can include determining the reading status, by the document server, during the review process, and indicating the reading status at the first client. Thus, embodiments of the method can permit the author of the document to be reviewed to always be provided with up-to-date status information on the progress of the review process so that he or she is enabled to better plan and organize his or her current work. Preferably, the determining of the reading status can be carried out based on the position of a scroll bar at a monitor of the second client indicating the position in the document to be reviewed. This can represent the simplest way of following the progress of the reading status. In other applications there also may be implemented, for example, a percentage indicator that, whenever the reader scrolls up or down, depicts the actual status. For example, in applications like Kindle Books provided by Amazon, the percentage of the reading status is shown constantly as the user changes pages. Thereby, an indication may be provided to the user of how far his or her reading has progressed. This indication, in turn, may be transmitted from the second client back to document server and then, the document server may inform the first client and thus, the author or drafter that the review has been progressed up to a certain level.

Embodiments of the method may also include receiving, at the document server, checkpoint tags set at the first client indicating a quantitative status of the document review. The checkpoints may be added or set in the document to be reviewed by the author himself, so that when the reviewer reaches them they may be switched on automatically or manually sending immediately a confirmation back to the author concerning the quantitative status of the document review. Further, the checkpoints may be set by the author at different points within the text of the document to be reviewed, thus, providing the opportunity to also provide a kind of ranking as to the importance of specific areas within the document. For example, the author may set more checkpoints at a section in the document that is important to be read, while setting fewer (or none) in a passage that is considered to need less. Checkpoints may also be activated and de-activated by the reviewer. For instance, the reviewer, if he or she thinks that a certain checkpoint has been set by the author erroneously or the author should reconsider it, then she or he may de-activate the checkpoint and cancel its status at author's side.

Moreover, a system for providing information on a review process of a document is provided. Embodiments of the system can include a document server comprising a central documentation system enabling document collaboration The document server can be connected via a communications network to a first client (document drafter) and a second server (document reviewer). Embodiments of the system can be configured to carry out embodiments of the method as outlined above and discussed herein. Embodiments of the inventive system can provide the advantages outlined above. It should be appreciated that the document server can be a computer device that includes a processor connected to a non-transitory computer readable medium and at least one transceiver unit or interface for communicative connection to clients. The first client and second client can each be communication devices or communication terminals (e.g. smart phone, laptop computer, tablet device, desktop personal computer, etc.) that is a machine that includes a processor connected to a non-transitory computer readable medium and at least one transceiver unit (e.g. a wireless network interface, a near field communication interface, etc.) or can be configured as an applications stored on the computer readable medium of such a device for being run by the processor of the device.

Embodiments of the system can include a reading pace detector. It should be appreciated that the reading pace detector can be configured to assess the pace at which a document is being reviewed at a client.

A communication apparatus is also provided. Embodiments of the communication apparatus can be configured as an embodiment of the system or a component of the system (e.g. a client component of the system, or a document server of the system, etc.). For example, a document server connectable via a communications network to a first client and a second client can be configured to receive a document to be reviewed from the first client, process the document to be reviewed that is received from the first client by creating a copy of the document to be reviewed and modifying the copy so the copy is a modified copy that includes predetermined typos and/or grammar errors. The document server can be configured to permit the second client to access the modified copy so as to start a review process for reviewing the document to be reviewed, determine a quality of the review process performed via the second client based on an extent to which the predetermined typos and/or grammar errors included in the modified copy are corrected via the second client during the review process, and transmit information related to the evaluated quality of the review process to the first client.

Other details, objects, and advantages of the invention will become apparent as the following description of certain present preferred embodiments thereof and certain present preferred methods of practicing the same proceeds.

