1. I understand the you plan to separate control over editorial and administrative tasks in version 2. I think that is a very good idea---it's not good now that any editor can change the design of the journal. My preference would be also to limit the actions one editor can take regarding a paper being handled by another editor. Currently, one editor can assign referees to a paper being handled by another editor, which seems to me inappropriate.
2. I would like not to have to specify in advance, as part of the journal setup, the number of referees per paper. Some papers will have no referees, others will have one, two, three, four, or maybe more. It would seem to me to be a better design to allow any number of referees (with there always being an "add a referee" button available).
4. When a referee is reminded about an overdue report, it would be useful to keep a log of the reminders (so that the editor remembers whether she has sent one...).
5. We expect at least many of our papers (like most papers in economics) to go through more than one round of refereeing. That is: paper is submitted -> gets refereed -> editor sends back to author for revision -> author sends back revised paper -> editor sends revised version to referees (probably the same ones as on the first round, but possibly new ones) -> and so on (possibly through several rounds). The current system doesn't seem to easily accommodate this workflow, though maybe I don't fully understand it.
6. It would be useful to keep (and make available to editors) statistics on referees---how long they took, how good a job they did. (The latter will require editors to rate referees' reports as they come in; allowing comments by editors on referees would be good too.)
osborne wrote:Another request:
7. Referees be reminded automatically when they are late. One possibility is to send reminders that are completely automated. I prefer that each editor get a warning when referees are overdue, and be given the option of sending a reminder (which s/he can customize). It would be good if each editor could have a "to do" page, where tasks are listed in order of some kind of priority: e.g. referee reports that are overdue, papers for which reports have been received but no decision has been made, papers that have been sent back for revision and not yet returned. (I realise that referees can now be reminded manually, but there is no warning that they are overdue, and no ordering of priorities (that I can see).)
blake wrote: 1) If a reviewer is obstinant and just sends their review in by email, the editor MUST have the ability to enter thier information into the system. Right now I cannot enter their recommendation for them or event that they have sent in the review - I have already sent out embarassing reminders for completed reviews.
2) It is very rare that a paper gets "ACCEPTED" or "ACCEPT with Minor Revisions". In most cases a paper requires an additional review cycle. But the only options for the editor are "ACCEPT" or "DECLINE". Neither one is appropriate in this case. I am having to "DECLINE" people's papers and then send them an email urging them to resubmit their revised paper as a brand new manuscript.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests