In OJS2 this situations were clear and well handled. Depending on the role (which could easily be seen in the breadcrumbs) software would allow appropriate workflow. In OJS3, if the editor accepts to review the article, and completes the reviewer’s workflow, he/she stays stuck in reviewer role for this particular submission.
This can be worked around in the browser’s address bar, by removing “reviewer” and typing “workflow” instead.
EDIT: Actually this does not seem to be a real workaround, as there is no way that the reviews can be “confirmed”, so no way to really conclude the reviewing stage. If the reviews can not be confirmed, than they can not be imported into decision emails.
EDIT #2: The reviewing process may be continued without confirmed reviews.
I forget whether I’ve already asked you for your workflow requirements. Is this an Editor or Section Editor? Do you expect this user to be prevented from accessing submissions as Editor/SectionEditor for which they’ve been assigned as Reviewer?
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Editor or Section editor is the boss of the editorial workflow, including review stage. Editors may be one of the reviewers for some of the submissions, and I think they should not be prevented from accessing the submission as editors.
Only external peer reviewers can be blind. Editors receive the submissions, do the first evaluations, reject immediately or send to external peer review. They just can not be blind. If they decide to do a detailed peer review, it will be single blind, i.e. blind for authors.
In short, this means clarifying the distinction between Section Editors and Journal Managers. Managers will always have access to all submissions, and Section Editors will always have access only to the submissions to which they’ve been assigned. (This assignment can take the form of automatic assignment, based on what sections they’re designated as Section Editors for.)
This is done primarily to support the case of Guest Editors, which is a situation we’ve had a moderate amount of feedback on. These users will generally behave as Reviewers, but will occasionally be asked to perform editorial roles on specific submissions.
Generally I’m not in favour of allowing people to view both the Reviewer interface and the editorial workflow for the same submission. If they’ve got permission to view the editorial workflow, then the reviewer workflow will present a confusingly feature-limited window on the submission. I think a better approach might be to bulk up the reviewing tools in the editorial workflow instead. If that’s even necessary, as OTOH managers/assigned section editors should be able to enter review responses using the editorial workflow already in OJS 3.0.1.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
I agree with you. JM should have access to everything. Editors, access all submissions, but (maybe) not to administration and management. Section editors access only manually or automatically assigned submissions. Guest editors access only manually assigned submissions.
About the integration of reviewer’s tools into editor role: I can not properly test the current workflow, because it is really hard to test the software with every so often appearing error message “The form was not submitted properly”. Then the system becomes autistic… and can not proceed to further step, or send message, or assign reviewer, or thank reviewer, or import review in email…
Got caught by this today. As Editor I do an Editorial every issue. I created the editorial and submitted it, then could not see how to move the editorial to copyedit. I was caught by being the author of the editorial. I worked out I could manually enter
And now I see the option to move the paper to review/copyedit
This is a big issue, and for users with an editorial role this should be primary and author/review secondary.
There are ongoing issues with OJS 3.1.0-1 including the inability to get authors to edit/fix metadata in the review and copyedit stages. This problem needs to be fixed asap.