New features for submission workflow: change steps orders and handle assigned editor


#1

Hi,

We use OJS 3.0.2.

Editors in chief of our journals would like to report requests for the submission workflow.

1) When an author submit a manuscript
Steps for submitting a manuscript are currently as follows:

  1. Start
  2. Upload Submission
  3. Enter Metadata
  4. Confirmation

Our Editors in chief say the step 2 when you upload submissions files should be at the end, and at least after entering Metadatas.
They say it’s a common way to proceed for Scholarly journals. And it’s the way that a “well known” proprietary software works.
Is it possible to change the order of the steps ?

2) For editors who are assigned to a manuscript
In submission process, an editor in chief assigns a manuscript to an associate editor which assigns himself the manuscript for review to a reviewer.
They also say it’s a common way to proceed for Scholarly journals. And it’s also the way that the “well known” proprietary software works.
In OJS2 and OJS3 now, they use the role of of “Journal Editor” as “Editor in chief” and “Section Editor” as “Associate editor”

When the “Journal Editor” assign a “Section Editor”, they would like the “Section Editor” to be notified. And that he could accept or decline to be assigned as “Section Editor”. When a “Section Editor” is currently assigned, it’s assumed that he has accepted.
They also would like a system of schedule with: Date of Request, Response Due Date and an email reminder.
In brief, they would like the same workflow process for “Journal Editor” or “Section Editor” who are assigned to a manuscript than for reviewers.

Is it possible integrate this feature which seems to be very important to handle a submission process with lot of associate editors ?

Thanks in advance for your answers.
Best regards.
Helene


#2

Hi @hcl,

We have intentionally chosen to put the upload before the metadata entry. That’s because we’d like to automatically detect metadata from the uploaded files and pre-fill the metadata forms, potentially even skipping the metadata entry form as a required step if we are either secure about the quality of the metadata or perhaps able to retrieve it from an external system.

For section editor notifications, you should be able to notify those users using the “Notify” action once you’ve assigned the user.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team


#3

Hi @asmecher,

Thanks for your answers.

I understand now why you have intentionally chosen to put the upload before the metadata entry.

For section editor notifications, yes, we can notify editors using the “Notify” action once we’ve assigned the user. But our editors in chief say it’s not enough. They would like the same complete workflow process for “Journal Editor” (or “Section Editor”) than the one which exists for reviewers with: Date of Request, Response Due Date, the possibility for the editor to decline and an email reminder in case of no reply.
Can we hope to have such features in the future ? May be I could make a proposal, in the contribution section of OJS 3.1 ?

Thanks in advance for your answers.
Best regards.
Helene


#4

Hi @asmecher,

I allow me to write you again about the subject of editors who are assigned to a manuscript.

For our journals, it’s would be very important it exists the same workflow process for “Journal Editor” or “Section Editor” who are assigned to a manuscript than for reviewers.
Even it’s possible to notify section editor using the “Notify” action once he has been assigned, our editors in chief say it’s not enough. They would like the same complete workflow process for “Journal Editor” (or “Section Editor”) than the one which exists for reviewers with: Date of Request, Response Due Date, the possibility for the editor to decline and an email reminder in case of no reply. And also the number of submissions assigned to an editor.

One of our journal has more than 60 Section Editors and the editorial secretary hasn’t got enough time to check if all Section Editors who have been assigned has answered.

Would it be difficult to implement the same complete workflow process for “Journal Editor” (or “Section Editor”) than the one which exists for reviewers with: Date of Request, Response Due Date, the possibility for the editor to decline and an email reminder in case of no reply ?

How can I officially suggest such features ?

Thanks in advance for your answer.
Best regards.
Helene


#5

Hi @hcl,

I think the closest match to the feature you’re looking for is in OMP in the form of an “internal review” (typically involving press staff) that happens before the “external review” (typically involving knowledgeable outsiders, a.k.a. the normal OJS review process). The internal review is implemented between the OMP code repository and the pkp-lib library that OJS also uses, so it’s possible to migrate this to OJS with some coding (i.e. the codebases are “compatible”).

I think the best way to accomplish this would be to migrate the feature entirely into the pkp-lib library that both OJS and OMP share, and add a setting in OJS that allows for the optional enabling or disabling of the “Internal Review” feature so that it’s available to those who want it.

However, this isn’t a request we’ve had before, so it’s not a priority for us at the moment. We’d be happy to review and facilitate code contributions that accomplish this, as long as it’s minimally invasive to OJS users who don’t require that feature.

Thanks,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team


#6

Yes it is with a bit of coding. I have already modified the steps handling in a way that it is a bit more customizable. If you are interested I can provide a PR.

So lonG
Daniel


#7

Hi @asmecher and @j1shin,

Sorry for the late reply.

Yes, I am interested in what you did.
And thanks again for your interest in our request.
I am sure this may interest many journals that work with a large number of associate editors.

Best regards.
Helene