Please don't patent peer review

This does seem like such an incredibly corporate thing to do.

The description of the invention is lengthy, but is essentially a description of the process of peer review, but on a computer. For example, it includes a detailed discussion of setting up user accounts, requiring new users to pass a CAPTCHA test, checking to see if the new user’s email address is already associated with an account, receiving submissions, reviewing submissions, sending submissions back for corrections, etc, etc, etc.

Patenting a method of scientific review is just flat-out immoral. Don't do that. Just don't.

The patent departs slightly from typical peer review in its discussion of what it calls a “waterfall process.” This is “the transfer of submitted articles from one journal to another journal.” In other words, authors who are rejected by one journal are given an opportunity to immediately submit somewhere else. The text of the patent suggests that Elsevier believed that this waterfall process was its novel contribution. But the waterfall idea was not new in 2012. The process had been written about since at least 2009 and is often referred to as “cascading review.”

That's not even a great practise anyway. First, it's hardly difficult to submit to another journal, it's not something you need a special method for. Second this is not necessarily a terrible practise, but it's not a great one either. It shouldn't be seen as normal to resubmit if a paper is rejected. A better approach would be to have a system for choosing the appropriate journal at the submission stage. And it probably would be a good thing to have more distinction between the journals and their subdivisions, in my opinion.
https://plus.google.com/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/LfJxdkdhcz2

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-online-peer-review