It’d be good if there was a way to deal with reviewers that passed away or are no longer active.
Sure, one can always remove a role, but that in itself doesn’t prevent another Editor or Section Editor from giving back that role to them. This may cause the review to get delayed considering it may take a long time until someone realizes a deceased reviewer had been selected.
One suggestion would have an option that sets, at the journal manager level, that user as active or inactive for that journal. This would mantain all their historical data while preventing Editors from inviting them for future reviews.
Another suggestion would be having user-based custom tags to flag users as deceased or any other relevant quality.
Hi @alexxxmendonca,
Have you tried disabling the user account? I believe that should remove reviewers from the selection list.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Hi @asmecher,
I had forgotten about that option! Yes, I think that will do it.
However the flagging/tagging is still something to be considered. Sometimes you want to mark users internally according to their skills, reputation, spoken languages, particularities etc
Thanks!
Hi @alexxxmendonca,
There is a field for that – it’s called “Editorial Notes” in English.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Hi @asmecher,
I’m not familiar with that field. Where can I find it? And does it show on search results lists or only if you check the user profile?
Hi @alexxxmendonca,
See the “Editorial Notes” link, e.g.:
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
@asmecher I see.
But let’s say I want to see those notes before inviting a reviewer. Where do I see them?
The whole point is to give some extra information to the Section Editors about the reviewers before inviting them.
Per your example, first the Section Editor needs to select the reviewer in order to check those notes.
Hi @alexxxmendonca,
When that field has contents, you’ll see it when you are browsing the list of available reviewers. If it’s not visible, it’s because that field has no contents.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Hi @asmecher,
I see! That’s good to know!
Thanks!