Conference Timeline - Accepted abstracts and papers options

[ramon]

Hello all,
This may seem like a really dumb question, but what do 'Accepted abstracts' and 'Accepted papers' options really do?
Do they publish a page with the accepted papers on the date defined? Or do we still have to go through the full publishing process (submit a final galley)?
Does it have paging, ordering/filtering options like OJS's ToC?
We are still on OCS 2.1.2, and altering the Accepted Abstracts option date does not produce any apparent changes on approved and published presentations.
Both dates are set to a future date in September...
Do we have to unpublish them for the option to take effect?

If this is not an available feature, how difficult would it be to implement this as an "Approved Articles Plugin" (for OCS 2.1.2), listing the approved articles (not necessarily published yet)?
The approved articles list is interesting to allow presenters to plan ahead their traveling expenses (although approved authors get notified by e-mail).
It would just be one more added feature.
The plugin would need to enable paging (for very long lists of articles), search and filters (much like the Track Director/Editor articles lists), as well as a configuration page where the user could choose which fields to display (not essencial...)

[jmacgreg]

Hi Ramón,

Those options set the date at which point accepted abstracts and papers are made available on the website, under Presentations IIRC. Abstracts still have to be accepted, and papers still have to be marked as Complete before they appear here.

How have you set your Submission Process (under Conference Manager -> Sched Conf Setup -> Submissions)? It may be that you can already implement the kind of workflow you want as described in the Approved Articles plugin.

Cheers,
James

[ramon]

Hello all,

We still haven't figured out why some articles were "editable" and why others were not.
It may have to do with roles, not only the possible change in review format.

Now I have another group of questions, a bit related, that's why I post them here:

1. What does the Archive functionality do in the Conference Timeline? Does it archive the conference, meaning nothing can be edited further (at least not by non-editors), preventing changes after the conference has ended? Or does it mean the conference is not accessible/visible anymore as an active conference (similar to the past issues -archives - in OJS)?
   This means we need to prevent users, besides the directors from updating metadata as well, not only the submission or supplementary files.
2. How do we prevent users from editing their articles if not through this feature?

[jmacgreg]

Hi Ramón,

Non-Director authors shouldn't be able to modify their uploaded files after the submission deadline has passed, with one exemption: for a breakdown on how this works, see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2675&p=9618#p9618. However, as you've pointed out, this is not the case for presentation metadata, which can be modified at any time. I agree that these fields should also be locked down -- would it make sense to you if the same rules that apply to submission files also applied to the submission metadata? If so, I'll post a bug report.

Cheers,
James

[ramon]

Hello James,

Although I will confirm, it is my personal opinion that the metadata should be blocked after the review is finished.
This would prevent the inclusion of undesired authors in the process.
Directors should be able to edit any data at any time, I presume, but leave it to Directors, not Track Directors.

[ramon]

Hello James,

UPDATE: 27/10/2010
According to Sonia Burnier, our colleague in Rio, in her experience the metadata should be locked at the time of archival of the conference, to allow publication of erratas, and the such.
If the Timeline doesn't provide this, please tell me how to alter OCS 2.1.2 to implement this functionality.

[jmacgreg]

Hi Ramón,

I've reported this here: http://pkp.sfu.ca/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6081. You'll note that I suggested the cutoff be when the submission due date has been reached; I think it's probably best to otherwise require the Directors to approve and implement errata, etc., post-review. Feel free to follow up with any further suggestions on the report; I'll ask a dev to see if they can suggest a quick way to implement this in the meantime.

Cheers,
James

[mcrider]

Hi Ramón,

The author's editing of metadata should be locked when submissions are archived, declined, or if there are open reviews against the submission. This is handled by classes/submission/author/AuthorAction.inc.php, in the function mayEditPaper. If you are seeing the edit metadata link on a submission when it shouldn't be there (i.e. on the conf/schedConf/author/submission/id page), it may be because you are logged in as a director or track director (as you can see in the function, users with that role will always be able to edit metadata). Have you tried logging in as the author of a paper, where the author only has the author role, and been able to edit a paper's metadata?

Cheers,
Matt