Are you an Editor, Author, or Journal Manager in need of help? Want to talk to us about workflow issues? This is your forum.
Moderators: jmacgreg, michael, vgabler, John
This forum is meant for general questions about the usability of OJS from an everyday user's perspective: journal managers, authors, and editors are welcome to post questions here, as are librarians and other support staff. We welcome general questions about the role of OJS and how the workflow works, as well as specific function- or user-related questions. What to do if you have general, workflow or usability questions about OJS:
1. Read the documentation
. We've written documentation to cover from OJS basics to system administration and code development, and we encourage you to read it.
2. take a look at the tutorials
. We will continue to add tutorials covering OJS basics as time goes on.
3. Post a question
. Questions are always welcome here, but if it's a technical question you should probably post to the OJS Technical Support
subforum; if you have a development question, try the OJS Development
I noticed that authors might remove author's version files associated with the current review round even after the paper has been published. I would prefer to disallow that, as there may be the need in the future to access these files. Is it something natural or rather it results from the fact that not all steps of the editorial process are utilized in our journal as they were designed in OJS? We skip copyediting (as a step in OJS, the copyediting is itself made during review) and from proofreading steps we only utilize the first one (Author) as the whole final proofreading is made in a single PDF file (there is no need to send the file to Proofreader and Layout Editor separately). And we do not use the option to send any file to Copyediting from the Review page. But I checked out to use every step and author is still able to remove the author's version file.
I think that journal managers should be able to enable/disable particular OJS modules based on the requirements of the editorial process. I know... easy to say. But not all the journals utilize such an expanded editorial process (at least some editorial steps are integrated into single one). Authors are often confused by too many options being not utilized in fact.
The OJS is being created as universal software for managing journals/editorial process, but at the same time it seems to be inflexible enough (yet great!), mainly with respect to the organization of the editorial process. Of course the editors may create some internal policies instructing what to use and how, but during real journal operation such "palliatives" often fails eventually. Maybe future versions are planned to be more flexible in this matter?
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:29 pm
Return to OJS Editorial Support and Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests