PKP Bugzilla – Bug 1324
The Editor/Author Correspondence would do better as an Email Template
Last modified: 2006-02-14 11:38:22 PST
I know this has absorbed a lot of energy getting it right, but Rory's solution for the blind CC to
Reviewers now seems the obvious way to treat the whole thing, for as it stands, it is half email, half
comment box, and it isn't clear what has been emailed and what will be emailed. This will solve that
1. THE Editor/Author Correspondence COMMENT BOX WOULD BE REPLACED BY AN EMAIL TEMPLATE,
IMPORT at the bottom, along with the BCC option for notifying reviewers.
Subject Editorial Decision
I may not be understanding the scope of this request, but we should not be
removing the editor/author comments feature. If this is merely a modification to
allow the editor decision notification (see bug #1311) to be sent from this
page, then that is acceptable.
I am suggesting replacing the E/A Comment with a email template function, yes, but I wanted to keep
the comment box to hold the saved body of the emails which would be very helpful for the author and
editor to review, especially given the months it takes for revisions to be made. So the SE clicks on the
[email icon] and goes to the Editor Decision email template, with review import capacity, and email
reviewer link, or the SE clicks on the [comment icon] to see previous messages to and from author.
Otherwise, the ability to review the exchange of a month or two ago is not that easy. The Editor
Decision would like this, with a corresponding set up for Authors, and "Email author" is very clear, like"
Select decision [Select one...]
Decision Resubmit for review 2005-11-23
Email author [email icon] [comment icon] 2005-11-23
Author Version 23-21-AV.doc
This sounds like a complete deparature from the current approach. Why is it
being brought up now? I think any such changes would have to be deferred.
I do not agree with removing the Editor/Author comment functionality, nor with
using the comments for purposes other than what it is intended, like saving emails.
The changes I am asking us to consider are being brought up for the reasons outlined in my comments
for this bug (especially #2) and are brought up now rather than earlier because the design balance
between the comment (record of exchange) and correspondence (email) function has gradually evolved
with Rory's help to this point. If I am not convincing on the fact that a problem remains with my earlier
design of E/A, I will rethink my case; if my proposed solution does not work, then let us try some other
approach. If it needs deferring, that's fine.
On the proposed use of the comment box, for example, I did worry about re-purposing. However, I
realized that the comment box serves above all as a record for critical input in the editorial process
(reviews, E/A correspondence, proofreading corrections, etc.). The SE consults the boxes as a record
through that icon (and less frequently uses it as an input device for that purpose), which is why it
seemed consistent with what I proposing here. As I have said before, the E/A correspondence is the
most delicate and important work the editor does, and it is understandable that it would take a lot of
finetuning on our part to serve that operation well.
*** Bug 1311 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***