1) There needs to be a way to funnel articles on submission, based on the author’s selection of a journal Section to a rotating list of appropriate section editors, so that the article is automatically assigned to a section editor. That assigned section editor can override the assignment, using the current system for Editors under the article Summary.
a) Journal Management >Journal Sections
[ ] Section Editors are assigned submissions automatically on a rotating basis.
2) There needs to be the option of cascading or the nesting of editors in a hierarchy, which is key to scalability as it allows section editors to appoint any number of subsection editors whose work they oversee, with the potential for this growing division of responsibility and oversight.
- Allow for nested editor hierarchy
- Consider the case of PLoS, which has 50 editors and 5000+ section editors.
- Paper review – making second round of review possible before first round is complete: It would be useful if the 2nd round of review could be active and available before the 1st round is totally completed. Currently Round 1 needs to be completed by all reviewers before the editor can request a reviewer in Round 2 to begin their reviews – this poses a problem if one of the reviewers from a previous round is unable to complete their review for whatever reason and the system is then pending an update from that reviewer before anything else can proceed.
- Making previous reviews from previous rounds available all through the system: This was brought to our attention by a journal using the full OJS online peer-review system. All previous reviews are apparently lost from round 1 when that reviewer moves into round 2 of the review so how does one ensure that changes are not lost in between rounds of review? If possible to keep the previous round of reviews available that would be useful.
- Reactivating a reviewer who has declined to do a review: If a reviewer declines to take on a review for whatever reason there is no way for the editor or the reviewer themselves to make that person available for review on that paper again unless moving into the second round of review. Is it possible to have the option to reinstate a reviewer immediately if their availability changes, rather than waiting for the next round?
- Dates for reviewer availability – highlighted for editors: Often a reviewer is unavailable at a certain time and says ‘contact me after “insert date” as I will then be available’. It would be useful to have an option where an editor can then note a reviewer’s availability or unavailability down within the system – for example, with their profile can be grayed out if unavailable and then reverts back to normal display once the date associated with that availability is reached. That way, at a glance, an editor can see when a reviewer is unavailable and not send them review requests, and can also immediately see when they are free to assist once again.
- Editor decision at end of review: If an author withdraws a paper there is no way for this to be noted within the system for that specific paper. Naturally it would be archived, so it would be great if a “Withdrawn” (as opposed to “rejected”) option could be made available for editors to select in their final decision.
In Setup 4.5 add a third item to “Select one”: ( ) A copyediting stage will not be employed in this journal.
Presumably also add the same as above, but for Layout Editing and Proofreading.
Some journals, incl. Coaction, don't use OJS for editing at all, and really just need to be able to work directly with an external typesetter after the review process is complete. So maybe add an option to "send to external typesetter" for copy/layout/proofing, at which point the Review process is marked complete, and the Editing process is triggered, but with only an option to upload final galleys and schedule for publication.
- The Editing page in the review process: Maybe the Layout, Copyediting and Proofreading sections could all be placed before the scheduling process as opposed to after. Often the current layout causes confusion particularly when showing someone the system for the first time. A common question is “Why is the scheduling in the middle of the page?”
- Papers that have been archived – better identification as to reason for archiving: It would be helpful if, as with papers that have been published and the issue is stipulated in the ‘status’ column, if papers that have been archived for other reasons can have a specific status such as ‘rejected’ or ‘withdrawn’ or ‘awaiting author updates’ so that an editor can see archived papers and the reason for their archiving in the first place. In some cases there are too many papers awaiting updates and the editor then archives these that have been waiting for longer than 3 months (for example) simply to clear them from the list of pending papers however, these papers may be reinstated at a later date and the editor/journal secretary can see this clearly from the archive ‘status’ column. This is also helpful for clarity when there are multiple ‘editors’ working on a single journal.