I succesfully upgraded Open Journal Systems from the version 2.4.2.0 to 3.4.0.7, in three steps. The editors in the journal however are disappointed that they are unable to do some corrections in title, abstract or references after the publication version is published. It worked in the previous versions, and this functionality is needed. Of course they can use the following workflow:
Unpublish - > make correction - > Publish
but they do not want the article to be even temporarily withdrawed from the table of contents, and from the frontend.
I wanted to ask what is the motivation for blocking the metadata form for published articles? And maybe I could make some changes in our code to revert it, making it possible to edit published articles wihout unpublishing them first? I know that they can create new version but actually this is not necessary if you want to correct some small error or spelling mistake.
I know that I can use âCreate new versionâ but if it is a matter of making small correction (for example missing letter or space) then the new version is not an appropriate solution. Especially that it will be visible by default with tje date of update on frontend, and you need to unpublish previous version with error if you do not want readers to see it. I could not find motivation for such workflow.
For OJS/OMP/OPS 3.3 and 3.4, the Unpublish / Modify / Publish cycle is necessary for cases where you donât want to create a new revision.
For OJS/OMP/OPS 3.5, weâre planning to relax the restriction on metadata editing, allowing editors to make changes on published content â though we donât advise it as a general practice. See #10263 for details.
For OJS/OMP/OPS 3.6 and forward, weâre enriching the versioning toolset to support version naming, classification, and distinctions between major and minor edits. See #4860 for details.
My guess is that editorial culture will become more accepting of proper versioning even on minor edits, and the urge to hide minor edits behind unpublish/republish cycles will diminish, as the tools for proper versioning become well accepted and used. Posting a revision should not feel scary and expensive, and modifications to published content should be tracked, even if the changes are minor. However, at the moment, editors are very hesitant to formally revise submissions, and want to be able to make âhiddenâ edits, and weâre accommodating that.