fwiw…
editor/submissionReview
Peer Review – Reviewer X – Recommendation line
IF SEND REMINDER is clicked AND THEN “Skip Email” is clicked, the date at the end of the line remains, implying that the reminder has been sent when in fact it has not.
Hi @CSP_Manager,
That’s intended behavior – the “skip email” still flags the workflow activity, but if you check the email log, you should see that it’s not recorded there.
Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team
Well, with respect, I would like to argue that in this case it is misleading (and erroneously intended) and should be a bug.
To clarify, in remindReviewer, Skip Email is equivalent to Cancel — and as a consequence, in the submissionReview / Peer Review / Reviewer X section, should not leave the date by the link in the “Recommendation” line.
By comparison, I do use the Skip button in the Editor Assigned function—where, even if the email is skipped, the editor is still assigned (AND visible in the event log, btw). So the intended behaviour is consistent and not misleading. Indeed, helpful and appreciated.
However, in the Send Reminder function, if the email is skipped, the reminder is not sent (and there is no corresponding event in the log, of course, because nothing has happened). So the intended behaviour, as you call it, is misleading, because the date is always there (whether the reminder was sent or nothing happened). Thus, this indicator (the date) is meaningless, because users are forced to double-check the email log to know if the reminder was sent. So that is why I believe, in the case of the Send Reminder function, it is a bug and should be fixed.
(What I shall try to do is remember that if I change my mind about sending a reminder, I should click Cancel, not Skip Email, which will then not log any event, and will not leave the misleading date beside the link, either.)
Thanks and regards,
Ksenia
Hi @CSP_Manager,
The intended use of “skip email” is e.g. for if you notified the recipient in some other way and want the workflow to proceed, as opposed to “cancel”, where you reconsider and do not want to proceed.
This could probably be made clearer, but the OJS 2.x line is essentially receiving basic maintenance only while we focus on OJS 3.x, so this sort of refinement is unlikely to get developer attention.
Thanks,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team