Are you responsible for making OJS work -- installing, upgrading, migrating or troubleshooting? Do you think you've found a bug? Post in this forum.
Moderators: jmacgreg, btbell, michael, bdgregg, barbarah, asmecher
What to do if you have a technical problem with OJS:
1. Search the forum
. You can do this from the Advanced Search Page
or from our Google Custom Search
, which will search the entire PKP site. If you are encountering an error, we especially recommend
searching the forum for said error.
2. Check the FAQ
to see if your question or error has already been resolved.
3. Post a question
, but please, only after trying the above two solutions. If it's a workflow or usability question you should probably post to the OJS Editorial Support and Discussion
subforum; if you have a development question, try the OJS Development
I am evaluating OJS for use by a journal I work for.
There are two major steps in our workflow I am curious about implementing.
The first is comment by our editorial board. Currently we have a mailing list of board members who receive emailed abstracts. When an abstract is emailed, they are asked to comment on whether it's suitable, volunteer to review it or suggest names of suitable reviewers. They do not otherwise play a role in the workflow (unless they are given a reviewer role). This is quite distinct from an editor role where they would be allowed to assign reviewers. They do not, they only suggest names. However, the closest role I can see is Editor or Section Editor. Aside from giving the board member too many powers the steps involved in the workflow would be complex. They would have to log in, go to the submission, create accounts for all their suggested reviewers (most of whom will not be chosen) in order to list them for us, and so on. At present they only have to reply to an email. A suitable workflow would be more a like a simple text box where they can type in free form comments on the submission and we take it from there.
The second is uploading of and automatic compilation of LaTeX. Our workflow involves LaTeX and it would be very useful if the authors could upload a tarball containing their LaTeX and have the system compile it and inform them of any errors.
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:17 am
Here's one possible solution to the issue of letting your editorial board view the abstracts and titles of submissions without giving them too much access or requiring too many steps: create a listserv and enter the broadcast email address in Journal Setup as an address to which submission confirmations can be CC'd. These confirmations, when enabled, go to article Authors; while they don't contain Abstracts as shipped, adding Abstracts to these messages is easy and I can provide instructions.
As for LaTeX -- OJS is currently format-neutral, meaning that authors can submit in any format they like without restriction. OJS just treats the file as a black box and passes it around between editorial stages. (We are implementing an XML back-end for OJS using the National Library of Medicine's Journal Article DTD, but that's a different story.) Support for LaTeX compilation is not currently included, but would be suitable for a plugin, and if you have the resources to develop it, I can provide a few notes to get you started.
Public Knowledge Project Team
- Posts: 8597
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:56 pm
Return to OJS Technical Support
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests