PKP Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Feature Request - Copyediting Process Improvement|
|Product:||OJS||Reporter:||Ramon Fonseca <ramon>|
|Component:||Editors||Assignee:||PKP Support <pkp-support>|
|Severity:||enhancement||CC:||alec, ales.kladnik, barbara.hui, cb-dilger, lisa.schiff, primoz.svetek, soizic.ernoult|
|Version Reported In:||Also Affects:|
Description Ramon Fonseca 2008-03-12 13:55:23 PDT
Hello all, As suggested by James, I post here this feature request, also posted in the forum: 1 - Make the copyediting phase be optional (I believe this should be easy to implement as a radio button) 1.1 - Allow the Editor the option to include the Author in the process or not, if using the Copyediting (also should be pretty easy to do...) 2 - Make the Copyediting process just like the review, allowing the Editor to choose Copyeditors and Authors (if enabled!) This would allow multiple rounds of review, with versioning control, registering translators as copyeditors without much hassle at any time in the process, which is a much needed feature for our Journals. Publishing in multiple languages raises impact factor, the speed of article citation, accessibility, etc.
Comment 1 Bradley Dilger 2010-02-24 13:47:01 PST
Our journal would like to have feature 1.1 listed below as well. We do not usually involve the author at the copyediting stage, but only in the review and proofreading stages. Perhaps a fallback would be to allow section editors to mark all steps in the copyediting process as complete. When coupled with disabling email to the author, that would achieve the desired result. Thank you, Bradley Dilger Composition Forum
Comment 2 Lisa Schiff 2012-01-24 10:22:59 PST
This is a high priority bug for the CDL and arises frequently because authors have problems figuring out the author copyediting workflow. The issue is that the icon/link (an envelope) that allows journal managers and editors to mark this step as complete isn't functional. Logging in as another user is not acceptable because it reveals other journals that user is associated with. Right now this is blocking the editorial and publishing workflow for our users, who have to have us do this step for them. Please let us know where in the release schedule this bug is. Thanks, Lisa ----------------------------------------------- Lisa Schiff, Ph.D. Technical Lead Publishing Group California Digital Library University of California Office of the President 415 20th Street, 4th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-2901 510-987-0881 (t) 510-893-5212 (f) Follow eScholarship on Facebook and Twitter
Comment 3 Alec Smecher 2012-01-24 15:42:45 PST
Hi Lisa -- currently this is out of scope for the next stable release, if one is necessary before version 2.4 is due (probably around the end of 2nd quarter). We haven't discussed specs for this yet, so I can't make any promises that it'll be included there. However, I'll file it against 2.4 for the moment so that it gets consideration for that release. Meanwhile, if you have further specs or some developer time to throw at it, we're open to suggestions.
Comment 4 Alec Smecher 2012-01-24 15:46:30 PST
Comment 6 Lisa Schiff 2012-02-24 09:41:40 PST
Thanks for filing that Alec. Is there any additional way that we can express interest in certain bug fixes/feature enhancements for the 2.4 release?
Comment 7 Alec Smecher 2012-02-24 09:50:55 PST
Lisa, we're currently focusing on OMP, which is planned for initial release at the end of the second quarter or so. After that we'll finish OJS 2.4 development and testing, which we're currently planning for release in the 3rd quarter. We'll be setting priorities for OJS 2.4 sometime in the 2nd quarter. Anything in Bugzilla scheduled against OJS 2.4 (see the Version field) will get serious consideration for that release, though depending on manpower and timelines some of that may get shuffled. The list will get firmed up in the 2nd quarter. I'd suggest CCing yourself on entries that you're particularly interested in, so you can monitor scheduling (and complain gently if something important gets deferred). It's probably also worth contacting us directly to talk priorities sometime in the 2nd quarter -- I'd suggest building some notes to send along. And anything you can help us specify in some detail is welcome; we depend on feedback when it comes to deciding implementation issues, since we don't publish journals ourselves.
Comment 8 barbara.hui 2012-10-08 15:08:17 PDT
Hi, we've identified this issue at CDL as something that needs priority fixing, and I'm currently working on a patch for it. Just wanted to let folks know here so we don't duplicate work unnecessarily. I will plan on submitting the patch to PKP for review and inclusion in the mainline OJS code if it looks acceptable. Please let me know if you're working on this as well! -Barbara --- email@example.com California Digital Library
Comment 9 soizic.ernoult 2014-05-16 12:32:05 PDT
Hi everyone, Same here for our journals. They all use different workflows and it's hard to fit in OJS editing process sometimes. It's cool that copyediting and proofreading can be bypassed by publishing the galley but it could be better if the journal manager can configure theses sections more precisely as followed : 1. Copyediting : choose to show or hide this section, and choose if the author participate. If not, just have the final copyedit step. 2. Proofreading : show/hide section and which steps/users intervene The bug was reported in 2008 and you said, Alec, that it would be taken in consideration in 2.4. As I use 2.4 and didn't see thoses features, will it be implemented in 3.0 ? Thanks a lot for your great products Soizic ERNOULT Digital publishing coordinator Université de Montréal - Centre d'expertise numérique pour la recherche (CEN-R) Montréal
Comment 10 Alec Smecher 2014-05-22 14:43:44 PDT
Soizic, we pioneered a new process in OMP that's much more flexible, and that will be included in OJS 3.0. We did get a lot of feedback on OMP 1.0 and that will also be incorporated. Long story short, yes, by the time OJS 3.0 comes out the process should be much improved.