PKP Bugzilla – Bug 3294
Feature Request - Copyediting Process Improvement
Last modified: 2013-05-19 11:45:56 PDT
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.
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.
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.
Lisa Schiff, Ph.D.
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
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.
See also http://pkp.sfu.ca/support/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3178
(Ignore comment #4 -- it's a different issue.)
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?
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.
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!
California Digital Library