1. Technical Field
The embodiments herein generally relate to a content evaluation and rating system, and, more specifically to a self-governing medical peer rating system for health management content.
2. Description of the Related Art
Content on various subjects is available online through websites such as content and document management systems for publishing content from journals, review and rating websites, blogs, online encyclopedias, etc. Feedback and rating websites enable users to review and rate articles, movies and restaurants etc. to facilitate other users to make informed decisions based on the ratings. Blogs provide a platform for anyone to contribute fictional or non-fictional stories and educational material on disparate subjects. They also provide options for readers to comment and review content in an interactive manner. Electronic encyclopedias enable end-users to contribute content on a wide range of topics. This contributed content may be read, reviewed, edited, corrected, and improved by others.
The content management systems and document management systems allow users to create, review, edit, and approve content for the purpose of publishing electronic data. For example, a medical peer review citation index for publications involves independent reviews from a network of selected physicians by a company offering the peer review service. E-commerce or auction websites use rating systems for individual buyers, sellers, suppliers etc. based on parameters such as quality, price, opinions etc. There are community rating systems for contributors and content. However in these rating systems, every reviewer is treated equally. In specialized topics such as healthcare, although a multitude of users may have opinions, only a practitioner's opinion can be relied upon to make health related decisions.
In these existing online platforms for ratings and review, ratings are assigned to content based on opinions and experience, but not based on reliability. Generally, there is no process for verifying if the content is from a credible source. Further, not all transactions, written content and users are rated. Ratings that are within a community are restrictive. Points are given to those users who provide more content, regardless of its quality or accuracy. In addition, published journals become outdated quickly and there is a need to upgrade the medical journals from time to time. Accordingly there is a need for a specialized self-governing peer rating system, particularly for content related to health management.