Hello!
OJS 3.0.2. In the workflow for our journal we actually have two different stages of copyediting - literary editing and science editing. Of cause, we can use the same stage of copyediting for going through both of them, assigning first a literatory editor and then a science editor. Actually, we’re doing exactly this right now. As it has become clear, this approach is totally not evident and and prone to errors, as it is not clear by the first glance on what stage (literary or science) the particular article is.
So the right solution would be to add a separate stage called like “Science Copyediting” or something. Does it make sense and what would you think the best ways to solve it?
Best regards
Alex
Hi @alexvarsh,
Hmm, interesting. The closest thing OJS 3.x has to this is the Discussions tool; in order to use it in your case, you’d need to assign both types of copyeditors to the Copyediting stage, then create a Discussion for each. However, I can see how that might not be as clear as a completely new stage.
One thing we’re discussing that might be helpful is the ad-hoc creation and completion of tasks, possibly within the discussions tool. This might help track additional processes better.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Hi Alec,
you’re right - the Discussions tool is not adding any more clarity in this case. I’m not sure what you mean by the ad-hoc tasks, hopefully it’ll help to solve the issue. When are we to see it - in the future 3.1 release?
What about a more direct way of dealing with this problem, I mean adding a new stage? Is it really that we’re the only ones in need of it?
Thank you
Best,
Alex
Hi @alexvarsh,
Adding a stage is certainly possible, but it’ll involve adding code in bits and pieces throughout many parts of the system. I suspect it’ll be tough to maintain as a third-party modification, and I haven’t heard enough community call for this as a core feature to justify the extra UI.
The ad-hoc task creation etc. won’t be part of OJS 3.1, nor I suspect the release after, but I did raise it recently with one of our UI/UX-talented developers, so I suspect he’ll be mulling it over.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Hi Alec,
it is really sad that these new features will not go out in 3.1 version and even the next. Could you think of any workarounds other than using Discussions? I even thought about moving the second half of Copyediting stage to Production stage without assigning a journal issue. So if we see an article on Production with the “Schedule for publication in…” field empty - then it means that only “literary editing” is completed but “science editing” is still pending.
Believe me, this problem has turned out to be a serious one for our document flow.
Best
Alex
Hi @alexvarsh,
I hear you, but we’ve got a lot of competing priorities and this isn’t a requirement I’ve heard elsewhere. We’re open to feature contributions if you have the time to hack at it, and generally try to help with arriving at a specification that’s suitable for merging (as opposed to maintaining as a fork) and code review.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team