Editor and Reviewer Overviews

Feature Requests
1

I originally posted this in the Questions section, but got no response, presumably because it is a design / programing issue and needs action here. So here it is:

We’ve recently upgraded to OJS 3.0.2, and everything is now working as it should.

However we have a big issue with the way in which both Editors and Reviewers are assigned and can be viewed. In short, unlike in OJS 2.x.x, there seems to be no way to check the overall situation with regard to Editors and Reviewers, i.e. which editor or reviewer is doing what, when they were last assigned a task, or completed it, how many tasks they are doing or have done etc. etc. In the case of Reviewers, the rating system, which we used religiously and was vital in selecting from hundreds of reviewers, has also gone.

In both cases, when asisgning an Editor to oversee a submission, or when assigning a Reviewer to review an article, one can only see a list of names (without any data). And then when you select an Editor or Reviewer, you get to see whether they are currently assigned something or not - and that’s it!

As either Editor- in-Chief or Editor, I need to have these overviews, to be able to see when a reviewer last reviewed for us, how many reviews they have done, how fast they are as a reviewer etc. And I need to be able to see this information in a single place, not just person-by-person.

This is essential!

IN general, OJS3.0 has made huge and much appreciated advances in workflow management, clarity and most other areas, but this is a big step backwards, and I don’t understand why this functionality which previously existed in OJS2.x.x was removed.

Can you please bring it back!

All the best,

David Murakami Wood
Editor-in-Chief
Surveillance & Society
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org

2

I’ll be glad to hear about this issues too…
Thank you for mentioning them @DavidMW.

Best regards

3

Hi all,

Please be patient – we’re a small team with a lot of priorities to juggle. We’ve been discussing this a little internally and will respond on your other post. In the meantime, please don’t double-post – it divides the conversation.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

4

Hi Alec,

Good to hear from you. I wouldn’t have written another post if I had at least received an acknowledgement - we weren’t expecting a full answer immediately but we do need to know that someone has read the message. In the absence of an acknowledgement, I was worried that I had posted in the wrong place.

And I wouldn’t normally be pushy (seriously, you can check how many times I’ve posted here since we started using OJS almost 10 years ago - and we’ve been a standard-bearer for OJS in all kinds of places), but the absence of this functionality isn’t just a priority for us, it comes pretty close to a deal-breaker for the way we operate our journal. The only reason we are operational at the moment is because the forthcoming issue is a special one which is being reviewed in a different way than normal (and one which isn’t possible for the our normal peer-review process).

All the best,

David Murakami Wood
Editor-in-Chief
Surveillance & Society
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org