JP2014139713A - Refereeing result table generating device and refereeing result table generating program - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To facilitate description of refereeing result of a document, such as design specifications, to contribute to document quality improvement.SOLUTION: A document inputting unit 13 accepts input of refereeing document data to which a plurality of refereeing comments to a document are added. A position specification unit 14 specifies a location of the document of each refereeing comment added to the inputted refereeing document data. On each refereeing comment, a refereeing result table generation unit 16 generates a refereeing result table showing the refereeing comment and the location of the refereeing comment specified by the position specification unit 14.

Description

  The present invention relates to a technique for creating a peer review result table for transmitting a result of peer review of a document to a document creator.

  A document such as a design document is created by a creator and then reviewed by a reviewer, and is revised by the creator based on a review result to improve quality. The reviewer creates a review result table indicating a review comment indicating the pointed out content and a position indicating the pointed out point in order to convey the review result to the creator. The peer review result table is also used to collect statistics on the content of the indications and the number of indications and to evaluate the quality.

  While reviewing the document, the reviewer fills in the specified format in the specified format for the review comment and the position that is the subject of the review comment (X page x line, Chapter X, section X section Δ, etc.) A peer review result table is created.

JP 2004-348310 A JP 2004-310795 A

Each time there are items to be pointed out, reviewers must check and fill in the target positions and write down the review comments, which is troublesome. For this reason, reviewers sometimes did not describe minor matters that were pointed out, making it impossible to conduct sufficient peer review and hindering quality improvement.
Also, in the past, by repeating revisions of the design documents, the position of the indicated part in the review result table created at a certain time and the corresponding position of the latest design document, etc. will shift, and the latest design document etc. The location information and the location information in the peer review result table were inconsistent. For this reason, it has been difficult to perform a process of obtaining the results of reviewing from a plurality of reviewing result tables having different preparation times.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION An object of the present invention is to facilitate the description of review results and contribute to the improvement of document quality.

The peer review result table generating device according to this invention is
A peer review result table generating device for generating a peer review result table showing a result of peer review of a document;
A document input part for inputting peer-reviewed document data with a plurality of peer-reviewed comments attached to the document;
A position specifying unit for specifying the position of each review comment attached to the review document data input by the document input unit in the document;
Each review comment includes a review result table generation unit that generates a review result table indicating the review comment and the position of the review comment specified by the position specifying unit.

  By using the peer review result table generating apparatus according to the present invention, a peer review result table is created when a reviewer indicates a point to be pointed out with a leader line or the like and describes a peer review comment in a document. Therefore, reviewers can easily describe the review results, and can expect an improvement in document quality.

1 is a configuration diagram of a peer review result table generation device 10 according to Embodiment 1. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the function outline | summary of the review result table production | generation apparatus 10. FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing a flow of document creation processing using the peer review result table generation device 10. Explanatory drawing of the document data 21. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the peer-reviewed document data 22. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the merged document data 23. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the review result table 24. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the reply document data 25. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the confirmation document data 26. FIG. Explanatory drawing of the document data 27 for delivery. FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a flow of processing for creating merged document data 23 in S7 and S17 of FIG. The flowchart which shows the flow of the preparation process of the review result table 24 in S8 of FIG. 3, S10, and S18. FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a flow of processing for creating delivery document data 27 in S <b> 19 of FIG. 3. FIG. The figure which shows an example of the hardware constitutions of the review result table production | generation apparatus 10 which concerns on the said embodiment.

Embodiment 1 FIG.
In the first embodiment, a review result table generation device 10 that supports creation of a document such as a design document will be described.

FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of a peer review result table generation device 10 according to the first embodiment.
The review result table generation device 10 includes a reviewer transmission unit 11 (document transmission unit), a reviewer reception unit 12 (a review document reception unit), a document input unit 13, a position specification unit 14, a merged document data generation unit 15, and a review result. A table generation unit 16 and a delivery document data generation unit 17 are provided.
When creating the document data 21, the creator uses word processor software, spreadsheet software, graphic editing software, or the like. These softwares have a function called a comment function or the like that calculates position information in the document data 21 of the inserted text. The position specifying unit 14 uses the position information calculated by the position information calculating function included in these software to specify the position information of the review comment.

FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram of the functional outline of the peer review result table generation device 10.
The peer review result table generation device 10 mainly has three functions (1) to (3).
(1) A function of generating a merged document data 23 by merging a plurality of review document data 22.
(2) A function for generating a review result table 24 from the review document data 22.
(3) A function for generating the document data 27 for delivery by collectively deleting the review comments of the review document data 22.

  FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the flow of document creation processing using the peer review result table generation device 10. The peer review result table generation device 10 supports the creation of a document by realizing the function indicated by the broken line in FIG.

The creator creates document data 21 (S1). Then, the reviewer transmission unit 11 transmits the document data 21 to each reviewer designated by the creator as, for example, an email attachment (S2).
FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram of the document data 21. The document data 21 is a document such as a design document created by the creator. In FIG. 4, only the character information is described, but the document data 21 may include a figure, a table, and the like.

Next, each reviewer to whom the document data 21 has been sent reviews the document data 21, adds a review comment to the document data 21 and creates the review document data 22 (S 3). It transmits to the review result table production | generation apparatus 10 as an attached file of an electronic mail (S4). Then, the reviewer receiving unit 12 receives the review document data 22 (S5).
FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram of the review document data 22. The review document data 22 is a document created by a reviewer reviewing the document data 21. The review document data 22 is a document in which a point to be pointed out of a document is designated and a review comment on the pointed out point is described. In FIG. 5, three review comments, review comments a1 to a3, are attached. Each review comment has a line at the point indicated, a balloon is drawn from the point indicated, and the comment is written in the balloon. [R] in the balloon is a tag indicating that the description below [R] is a peer-reviewed comment.

Next, the document input unit 13 inputs the review document data 22 sent from each reviewer (S6). Then, the position specifying unit 14 specifies the position in the document of each review comment attached to each review document data 22 input in S6, and the merged document data generation unit 15 stores each review document data input in S6. About each review comment attached | subjected to 22, the review comment is attached | subjected to the position of the review comment which the position specific | specification part 14 specified, and the merged document data 23 are produced | generated (S7).
FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram of the merged document data 23. The merged document data 23 is a document created by merging a plurality of review document data 22. The merged document data 23 has all the review comments attached to each review document data 22. FIG. 6 shows merged document data 23 created by merging the reviewed document data 22 (reviewed document data 22a) and the reviewed document data 22b shown in FIG. Therefore, the merged document data 23 is provided with the review comments a1 to a3 attached to the review document data 22a and the review comment b1 attached to the review document data 22b.

Further, the review result table generation unit 16 creates a review result table 24 based on each review document data 22 input in S6 (S8).
FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram of the peer review result table 24. The review result table 24 is a table in which a row is provided for each indication item, and each row includes review information, reply information, confirmation information, and the like. Peer review information includes the points pointed out, peer review comments, category, reviewer, and peer review date, response information includes the answer, respondent, and reply date, and confirmation information includes the confirmer and confirmation date. It is. The review result table 24 makes it possible to realize objective document quality control by tabulating the correspondence between the creator and the reviewer at the time of document creation.

Next, the creator modifies the document corresponding to the review comment based on the merged document data 23 and the review result table 24, and responds to each review comment to create the reply document data 25 (S9). Then, the review result table generation unit 16 updates the review result table 24 based on the answer document data 25 (S10). Then, the reviewer transmission unit 11 transmits the answer document data 25 created in S9 and the review result table 24 updated in S10 to the reviewer (S11).
FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram of the answer document data 25. The response document data 25 is a document created by correcting the document of the merged document data 23 in response to the review comment attached to the merged document data 23 and answering the review comment. Depending on the content of the peer-reviewed comment, the document may not be modified and only the answer may be written. In FIG. 8, an answer to the review comment is described in a balloon in which the review comment is described. [A] in the balloon is a tag indicating that the description below [A] is an answer.

Next, the reviewer confirms that the correction to the review comment has been correctly made based on the response document data 25 and the review result table 24, and enters the confirmation date in each review comment of the response document data 25. Confirmation document data 26 is created (S12), and the confirmation document data 26 is transmitted to the peer review result table generation device 10 (S13). The reviewer adds the review comment to the review comment that has not been corrected correctly, and creates the confirmation document data 26 without adding the review date. Then, the reviewer receiving unit 12 receives the confirmation document data 26 (S14).
FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram of the confirmation document data 26. The confirmation document data 26 is a document created by each reviewer comment attached to the response document data 25 by describing the confirmation date by the reviewer who attached the review comment. The reviewer will not return the date of confirmation and will send it back if the document corrections and responses are not appropriate. In FIG. 9, the confirmation date is described for the review comments a1, a2, and b1, but the confirmation date is not described for the review comment a3. Therefore, the peer-reviewed comment a3 means that it needs to be reviewed. [C] in the balloon is a tag indicating that the description below [C] is a confirmation result.

The creator confirms whether or not the confirmation date is described for all the peer-reviewed comments (S15), and if it is described (YES in S15), the process proceeds to S16 and includes those that are not described. If yes (NO in S15), the process returns to S8.
In the process of S15, the author confirmed that the confirmation date was described in all the peer-reviewed comments and then proceeded to S16, or confirmed that the confirmation date was not described in all the peer-reviewed comments. When the process proceeds to S <b> 8 later, the peer review result table generation device 10 may be configured to provide an input screen and receive a process branch instruction from the creator. Further, the review result table generation device 10 may be configured to read the confirmation document data 26, determine whether or not a comment starting with [C] is appended to all the review comments, and branch the process.

When the confirmation date is described for all the review comments, the document input unit 13 inputs the confirmation document data 26 sent from each reviewer (S16). Then, the position specifying unit 14 specifies the position in the document of each review comment attached to each review document data 22 input in S16, and the merged document data generation unit 15 stores each review document data input in S16. About each review comment attached | subjected to 22, the review comment is attached | subjected to the position of the review comment which the position specific | specification part 14 specified, and the merged document data 23 are produced | generated (S17).
Further, the review result table generation unit 16 updates the review result table 24 based on each confirmation document data 26 input in S6 (S18).

Then, the delivery document data generation unit 17 deletes all the review comments described in the merged document data 23 and creates delivery document data 27 (S19). The delivery document data 27 and the latest review result Table 24 is transmitted to the quality evaluator (S20).
FIG. 10 is an explanatory diagram of the delivery document data 27. The delivery document data 27 is created by deleting all the review comments from the confirmation document data 26. That is, the delivery document data 27 is final document data that does not contain a peer-reviewed comment.

  The quality evaluator confirms the delivery document data 27 and obtains statistical information on the contents of the indications and the number of indications based on the peer review result table 24 to evaluate the quality of the delivery document data 27. Depending on the quality, the quality evaluator sends the delivery document data 27 back to the creator for correction.

  When the process returns to S8 in S15, the review result table generation unit 16 creates the review result table 24 based on the current confirmation document data 26 (confirmation document data 26 received in step S14) (S8). . Then, based on the confirmation document data 26 and the review result table 24, the creator corrects the document corresponding to the review comment without the confirmation date, and writes the answer to the review comment without the confirmation date. Then, the answer document data 25 is created (S9).

FIG. 11 is a flowchart showing the flow of the process for creating the merged document data 23 in S7 and S17 of FIG.
The position specifying unit 14 sequentially reads the plurality of peer-reviewed document data 22 input by the document input unit 13, specifies the position pointed out by each review comment of each review document data 22 in order, and The position is stored in the memory (S21).
The merged document data generation unit 15 copies one review document data 22 of the plurality of review document data 22 input by the document input unit 13 (S22), and deletes all the review comments by the processing device and performs the review. Document data 21 without a comment is created (S23). Then, the merged document data generation unit 15 sequentially reads the review comments stored in the memory in S21 by the processing device, and adds the read review comments to the position stored in the memory in S21 in the document data 21 created in S23. (S24).

In the process of creating the merged document data 23, it is assumed that the documents in the plurality of review document data 22 input by the document input unit 13 are all the same.
However, for example, some reviewers may have changed the document at the time of review, and it may be possible that some of the documents in the review document data 22 are different. In this case, the document of the peer-reviewed document data 22 copied in S22 is adopted, and the peer-reviewed document data 22 copied in S22 is attached with each peer-reviewed comment data 22 and merged document data. 23 is created.
Of course, it is confirmed whether or not the documents of each review document data 22 are the same, and if the documents include different review document data 22, the merged document data 23 may not be generated as an error. Good. However, in order to proceed with the creation of a document such as a design document, it is desirable to generate the merged document data 23 ignoring even if there are some differences in the documents of the peer-reviewed document data 22.
Alternatively, the original review document data 22 may be stored inside the review result table generation apparatus 10, and the original review document data 22 may be used in the processes of S 22 and S 23.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart showing the flow of the process of creating the review result table 24 in S8, S10, and S18 of FIG.
The position specifying unit 14 sequentially reads the plurality of peer-reviewed document data 22 input by the document input unit 13, specifies the position of each review comment in each review document data 22 in order, and determines the review comment and the position of the review comment. Store in the memory (S31).
The peer review result table generator 16 copies the peer review result table 24 (template file) to which no data is input (S32). Then, the review result table generation unit 16 sequentially reads the review comments stored in the memory in S31 by the processing device, and writes them in the corresponding column of the template file (S33). It should be noted that which column of the template file is specified by a review comment tag ([R], [A], [C]) or a delimiter (such as a comma).

FIG. 13 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing for creating delivery document data 27 in S19 of FIG.
The delivery document data generation unit 17 reads the merged document data 23 (S41). Then, the delivery document data generation unit 17 sequentially deletes the review comments of the merged document data 23 read in S41 by the processing device (S42).

  As described above, the review result table generation device 10 according to the first embodiment uses the comment function provided by the word processor software or the like, and the reviewer indicates the position to be pointed out in the document and displays the review comment. If written, a peer review result table 24 is created. That is, it is not necessary for the reviewer to enter the review comment in the review result table 24 after confirming the target position and writing it in the review result table 24 each time there is an indication matter. That is, there is no need to create the peer review result table 24 while opening and switching the two files of the document file and the peer review result table 24. Therefore, since the review result table generation device 10 can easily describe the review result at an accurate position, the reviewer can perform the review work without burden, and can concentrate on the review work. Reviewers can also make minor suggestions without burden, and can expect improved document quality.

Further, conventionally, when the document is modified in accordance with the review comment, the creator has to find out the position of the review comment shown in the review result table 24 from the document, which is troublesome. In particular, after a document has been modified and added / deleted, the position indicated in the review result table 24 and the position that is actually the subject of the review comment will be shifted by the amount added / deleted. It has become difficult to find the position indicated in the peer review result table 24 from the document.
However, in the review result table generation device 10 according to the first embodiment, the position pointed out by the comment function provided by the word processor software is directly shown in the document. Therefore, even after the document is corrected and added / deleted, the pointed-out position does not deviate from the position actually subject to the peer-review comment, and the pointed-out position can be easily searched.

Conventionally, a single review result table 24 is created by connecting review result tables 24 created by a plurality of reviewers. At this time, one review result table 24 was created by connecting a review result table 24 created by another person under a review result table 24 created by a certain reviewer. Therefore, when multiple reviewers have made the same indication for the same part, the author must check the part many times and decide that no correction is necessary because it is the same indication. I had to.
However, the review result table generation apparatus 10 according to the first embodiment merges the review document data 22 created by all reviewers, and generates merged document data 23 in which the review comments of all reviewers are described. In the merged document data 23, the review comments for the same part are displayed together. Therefore, the creator can easily determine that the indication is the same for the same part.

  Further, the peer review result table generation device 10 according to the first embodiment not only simply writes the peer review comments and answers in the document data 21 but also creates the peer review result table 24. Therefore, the quality of the document data 21 can be checked by a quality evaluator as usual.

  In addition, a link to the indicated location in the document such as the peer reviewed document data 22 is embedded in the indicated location in each row of the review result table 24, and for example, when the indicated location in each row of the review result table 24 is clicked, It may be possible to move to the indicated location.

  In the above explanation, the creator modifies the document based on the result of the peer review. However, the present invention is not limited to this, and a document (editor) other than the creator may correct the document.

FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of the peer review result table generation device 10 according to the above embodiment.
As shown in FIG. 14, the peer review result table generation device 10 includes a CPU 911 (also referred to as a central processing unit, a central processing unit, a processing unit, an arithmetic unit, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, and a processor) that executes a program. Yes. The CPU 911 is connected to the ROM 913, the RAM 914, the LCD 901 (Liquid Crystal Display), the keyboard 902 (K / B), the communication board 915, and the magnetic disk device 920 via the bus 912, and controls these hardware devices. Instead of the magnetic disk device 920 (fixed disk device), a storage device such as an optical disk device or a memory card read / write device may be used. The magnetic disk device 920 is connected via a predetermined fixed disk interface.

  An operating system 921 (OS), a window system 922, a program group 923, and a file group 924 are stored in the magnetic disk device 920 or the ROM 913. The programs in the program group 923 are executed by the CPU 911, the operating system 921, and the window system 922.

The program group 923 includes “reviewer transmission unit 11”, “reviewer reception unit 12”, “document input unit 13”, “position specifying unit 14”, “review result table generation unit 16”, “ Software, programs, and other programs that execute the functions described as “merged document data generation unit 15”, “delivery document data generation unit 17”, and the like are stored. The program is read and executed by the CPU 911.
The file group 924 includes “document data 21”, “reviewed document data 22”, “merge document data 23”, “reviewed result table 24”, “response document data 25”, and “confirmed document data 26” in the above description. Information, data, signal values, variable values, and parameters stored in “delivery document data 27” are stored as items of “database”. The “database” is stored in a recording medium such as a disk or a memory. Information, data, signal values, variable values, and parameters stored in a storage medium such as a disk or memory are read out to the main memory or cache memory by the CPU 911 via a read / write circuit, and extracted, searched, referenced, compared, and calculated. Used for the operation of the CPU 911 such as calculation / processing / output / printing / display. Information, data, signal values, variable values, and parameters are temporarily stored in the main memory, cache memory, and buffer memory during the operation of the CPU 911 for extraction, search, reference, comparison, calculation, calculation, processing, output, printing, and display. Is remembered.

In the above description, the arrows in the flowchart mainly indicate input / output of data and signals, and the data and signal values are recorded in a memory of the RAM 914, other recording media such as an optical disk, and an IC chip. Data and signals are transmitted online by a bus 912, signal lines, cables, other transmission media, and radio waves.
In addition, what is described as “to part” in the above description may be “to circuit”, “to device”, “to device”, “to means”, and “to function”. It may be “step”, “˜procedure”, “˜processing”. In addition, what is described as “˜device” may be “˜circuit”, “˜device”, “˜means”, “˜function”, and “˜step”, “˜procedure”, “ ~ Process ". That is, what is described as “˜unit” may be realized by firmware stored in the ROM 913. Alternatively, only software, hardware such as elements, devices, substrates, and wirings, a combination of software and hardware, or a combination of firmware may be used. Firmware and software are stored in a recording medium such as ROM 913 as a program. The program is read by the CPU 911 and executed by the CPU 911. That is, the program causes a computer or the like to function as the “˜unit” described above. Alternatively, the computer or the like is caused to execute the procedures and methods of “to part” described above.

  DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 10 Review result table production | generation apparatus, 11 Reviewer transmission part, 12 Reviewer reception part, 13 Document input part, 14 Position specification part, 15 Merged document data generation part, 16 Review result table generation part, 17 Document data generation part for delivery , 21 document data, 22 peer-reviewed document data, 23 merged document data, 24 peer-review result table, 25 reply document data, 26 confirmation document data, 27 delivery document data.

Claims (7)

A peer review result table generating device for generating a peer review result table showing a result of peer review of a document;
A document input part for inputting peer-reviewed document data with a plurality of peer-reviewed comments attached to the document;
A position specifying unit for specifying the position of each review comment attached to the review document data input by the document input unit in the document;
A review result table generating device comprising: a review result table generating unit that generates a review result table indicating each review comment and the position of the review comment specified by the position specifying unit. The document input unit inputs a plurality of review document data with a plurality of review comments attached to the same document,
The position specifying unit specifies a position in the document of each review comment attached to each review document data input by the document input unit,
The review result table generation unit generates a review result table indicating each review comment attached to each review document data and the position of the review comment specified by the position specifying unit. The review result table generation device according to claim 1. The peer review result table generating device further includes:
The merged document data with each review comment attached to each review document data with respect to the document, the review comment specified by the position specifying unit for each review comment attached to each review document data The review result table generation device according to claim 2, further comprising a merged document data generation unit that generates merged document data to which the review comment is attached. The document input unit inputs a plurality of peer-reviewed comments to the document, and inputs reply document data with a reply comment for each peer-reviewed comment,
The review result table generation unit generates a review result table indicating the review comment, the position of the review comment specified by the position specifying unit, and the reply comment to the review comment for each review comment. The review result table generation device according to any one of claims 1 to 3. The document input unit inputs a plurality of peer-reviewed comments and answer comments to the document, and inputs confirmation document data with confirmation comments for each answer comment.
The review result table generation unit generates a review result table indicating, for each review comment, the review comment, the position of the review comment specified by the position specifying unit, and an answer comment and a confirmation comment for the review comment. The peer-review result table generation device according to any one of claims 1 to 3. A peer review result table generation program for generating a peer review result table indicating a result of peer review of a document,
Document input processing for inputting peer-reviewed document data with a plurality of peer-reviewed comments attached to the document,
A position specifying process for specifying the position of each review comment attached to the review document data input in the document input process in the document;
A review result table for causing each computer to execute a review result table generation process for generating a review result table indicating the review comment and the position of the review comment specified in the position specifying process. Generation program. A peer review result table generating device for generating a peer review result table showing a result of peer review of a document;
A document sending unit that sends document data to multiple reviewers;
A peer-reviewed document receiving unit that receives from each reviewer peer-reviewed document data to which a plurality of peer-reviewed comments are attached by each reviewer to whom the document sending unit has transmitted document data;
A position specifying unit for specifying the position of each review comment attached to each review document data received by the review document receiving unit in the document;
For each peer comment attached to each document data, a peer review result table generating unit that generates a peer review result table indicating the peer review comment and the position of the peer review comment specified by the position specifying unit,
The merged document data with each review comment attached to each review document data with respect to the document, the review comment specified by the position specifying unit for each review comment attached to each review document data And a merged document data generation unit that generates merged document data with the review comment attached to the position of the review result table.

Images