Personal tools
You are here: Home Dev Notes 2011 July 10 Historical Materialism EB: overview needs improving
Weblog Archive
 

Historical Materialism EB: overview needs improving

by Toni Prug — last modified Jul 10, 2011 12:30 PM

Comments on states:
  • 1. Draft and EB Draft states are confusing. EB wants to see only submitted articles, that is why Draft state confuses EB. I agree that these two states have confusing names. Semantics is the following: Draft is a submission in process, but not complete and not submitted - this state is only useful to authors and has no purpose within the EB workflowEB Draft is a submission, it is the first state that EB needs to see.
  • 2. an additional state is missing between Accepted and Published, Ready-for-Publication (or a similar name). Once a submission has been accepted there are tasks to be performed before it can be ready for publication: copyedit, add abstract, keywords, layout formatting. Once all of that is done, submission can be moved to Ready-for-Publication state (i don't know enough about this aspect of work to make my own mind up on this). 
  • 3. Revise-and-resubmit state should be different from incomplete submissions, from the Draft state. The meaning of those two states is different: a Draft is an unfinished submission, while Revise-and-resubmit is a complete submission that the EB has decided on, asking author to send an improved submission. I have a vague memory that we considered having R&R as a separate state in the workflow, but decided against it (cannot recall our arguments).  From the discussion in this meeting, it seemed a clear case that Draft and R&R require distinct states. Another additional state?
  • 4. Rejected state requires a sub-state: notified (yes/no. no is default). This is because when notifying is done by the Action Editor, he has to mark it on the submission. The sub-state is important to be able to distinguish whether the author has been informed of the rejection, which is an important EB taks which must not be left undone or in the unknown state.  
Comments on workflows: 
  • 5. There are two distinct workflows: a) editorial (EB draft, until accepted or rejected); b) publishing (accepted, ready-for-publication, published). EB does not have to deal with the publishing queue, those tasks do not involve editorial decisions, they are part of the publishing process. EB would prefer them displayed separately.   
Comments on overview:
  • 6. EB needs to see only complete submissions i.e. no need to see articles in the Draft state displayed when they click on Articles in Overview.
  • 7. Overview can be improved by creating three additional categories-views: 
    1. editorial - submissions that EB has to deal with i.e. the queue of current tasks (from EB draft until it moves to publishing queue or gets rejected). It was not explicitly stated, but it seemed to me that Revise and Resubmit also does not belong to this category-view, since it is not a task that EB has to deal with. Does Awaiting-action-from EB category need changing to satisfy this? 
    2. publishing - submissions in accepted, ready-for-publication or published states
    3. archive - rejected submissions (perhaps some other states also can end up here).
Conference comments:
  • 8. Overview: Panel and Pre-constituted panel need to be merged.
  • 9. Overview: Meetings category does not need to be displayed.
  • 10. Submission email sent to author says 'article', which confuses people. XML config needs updating.  
Other comments:
  • 11. submissions in Rejected state should be marked with clearly visible (above Actions, perhaps) large and colored rejected-icon. 
  • 12. Login link is missing, should be added to the UI.
  • 13. Logged in EB members should by default see on their personal user page all articles where they are assigned as Action Editors (a portlet?). Or, perhaps a portlet on the side should be displayed by default, so that editors see their tasks at all times (could be too annoying. perhaps it can be made removable in preferences on personal user pages).
  • 14. Minutes (taken live in meetings) of the EB meetings should have its own section on the website.
  • 15. Being able to obtain a list of all authors' emails, for each category, would be very useful (a script, linked from each overview category-view page?) for communication (plain comma separated list is fine, it will be used copy&paste to send emails).
Document Actions
Sections