Workflow improvement suggestions

[ramon]

Hello All,

Here are a few suggestions, to improve the workflow in the editorial process, mainly the copy editing, layout and proofreading stages.

1. Allow in the configuration to "remove" the unnecessary stages. Most journals do not use the copyediting and proofreading stages because they bring the author to the process. Most journals do not "like" this because the author's changes will cause the article to never finish the process, so they prefer having full control over the submission.
   Having checkboxes by the stage titles should do the trick.
   
2. Allow the editor to choose if the author will be a part of the process in the editing stage. Radio or checkboxes will define if the author will be added to the list of participants in the process.
3. The copy editing stage should be very similar to the review stage, with multiple rounds for each user, instead of the static and limiting 3-step process. In our 4-year experience, no journals have used this step, using the review process instead. The editing becomes useless, and when used it is incomplete, so the process doesn't get registered and controlled.
4. Separate the editing stages into 3 distinct pages. The users get very confused with the amount of information and uploading options. They end up not knowing what to do. It is visually cluttered and allows many user mistakes. Adding the pages to links, like summary, review and editing, the menu would be summary (which is not an ideal term either), review, copyediting, layout and proofreading.

If the configuration allows the removal of unwanted options, as well as allowing the editor to choose who will do the copyediting and proofreading like reviewers, then I believe OJS will be even more generic and compatible with multiple editorial processes that do not follow certain rules, and the processes will be recorded and registered in the system, which is what this is all about...

[John]

This is very helpful, Ramon, and I can some changes we can make. However, I need a little more detail on one point.You say that most journals don't use the copyediting stage, and in light of that I need to better understand how the "copy editing stage should be very similar to the review stage, with multiple rounds for each user." Can you set out how the rounds work. Is it editors getting authors to make changes by going back and forth, for example?
Thanks,
John

[ramon]

Hello John,

Most editors do not involve the author in the copyediting phase. This is the first point. They don't like to do this because the author ends up adding content that is not reviewed, and then the process never ends.

Secondly, journals sometimes require various rounds of copy review, which may also include translations and reviews of it.

So you may need copyeditors for english, spanish, french translations as well as the native language.

Publishing in many languages is regarded as a quality standard too, as well as an accessibility improvement.

Since we're working on the web, accessibility and open access is key to success.

I hope this makes the idea clearer...

[ramon]

Hello John et ali,

Another great improvement to the editorial process in OJS/OCS would be controls for each step, much like the Submission process.
The Editorial Team should NOT be allowed to skip to the next step without "concluding" a previous one.
Even though the flexibility is maintained to skip the steps, the Editorial Team should make a conscious decision that they are skipping to the next step.

The next steps should only be visible if previous steps are concluded.
This would be a visual guide too, improving accessibility and reducing errors.
Having arrows, or some kind of visual cue should be interesting.
Here's an example, I hope it's clear enough:
Step 1 - Submission Check (check submission for conformity to editorial submission policies - initial quality control) - allow Editor to skip step
Step 2 - Review - accessible only if step 1 is concluded, providing an alert message on screen in this regard! - assign reviewers, or allow Editor to skip step
Step 3 - Copy Edit - accessible only if step 2 is concluded, providing an alert message on screen in this regard! - similar to the review process, enabling Editors to Assign different "types" of users (including the authors, Copy Editors, who may be translators, grammar specialists, etc) - allow Editor to skip step
Step 3 - Layout - accessible only if step 3 is concluded - assign Layout Editor, who should NOT be allowed to override final article version - allow Editor to skip step, self-submittal of PDF/HTML
Step 4 - Proofreading - similar to copy edit

Hope this helps and is not too difficult to implement...