Some doubts about reviews from articles migrated to OJS3

Hi everybody,

My institution is facing the migration from OJS2 to 3.x and we have done a first migration just for testing. Checking some migrated articles, I have noticed some differences, specially at the review step.

  1. The communication of the editor decision is signed by the author instead of the editor. When looking at the disscusion it seems that the error only affects to prepared emails. And I don´t see how can it be changed. However, looking at the Editorial History, every move and message appears signed by the right person.

  2. OJS3 seems to gather documents that had been uploaded separately during the edition of the article when using OJS2. I guess this is useful because many times it’s the same document that has been replicated during the different edition steps, but sometimes it hides documents that are not the same. For instance: a reviewer uploaded two files: one is the review inform and the other is the article text with comments. In that case I can only download one of them. Is it normal? How could I acces these files?

We are moving from 2.4.5 to and I would like to know if these differences are normal (well the first one is not) or we should try to fix them to avoid any negative effects for the journals in terms of transparency and recording of the information regarding to its activity.

Sorry if I am asking questions that have already been solved. I have searched for a similar topic at the community but I didn´t find it.