|(23 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)|
|−|;[[OJS Roadmap]] |+|
|−|:Future directions for OJS |+|
| || |
| || |
|−|==Milestone 2.3 (''' Current - Q4 2008' '')== |+|
| || |
|−|==Proposed for Future Release== |+|
| || |
<big>Less linear workflow</big>''' |+|
|−|* Less downloading and uploading req'd for workflow |+|
|−|* Possibility of using a single file for all workflow and tracking changes rather than submitting new files for each stage (perhaps with drag and drop, with copies left behind for documentation) |+|
| || |
|−|'''<big>Better support for pre-prints</big>''' |+|
that are in for .
|−|* "In press" section for articles that are currently in holding for actual publication. |+|
| || |
<big>Thesis Workflow Tool</big>''' |+|
|−|* OJS as a thesis submission and tracking system. |+|
|−|* SFU Library has a project on the books to develop a more robust thesis workflow tool. |+|
| || |
|−|'''<big>Submission as single file</big>''' |+|
including the .the and . -etcin ..
|−|* Submission model might be made better by including the option to make a . pdf containing the article, all supplementary files and appropriate metadata. Advantages include no need to de- identify properties, and review document is a single document - no need to download all figures, supplementary documents, etc in order to review. Of course, letter to editor and other documents not for reviewers would need to be submitted not to be included. |+|
| || |
|−|* add option to "display ISSN in sidebar" near the ISSN field in journal setup |+|
|−|* add 'Former Journal Title' and 'Former ISSN' as repeatable fields, for journals that have changed their names and/or ISSNs once or twice or more. |+|
|−|* announcements should display newest to oldest by default; and also allow for re-ordering by the JM |+|
be user interface from the . the in the , , the .
|−|* import transaction/rollback |+|
|−|* more flexible statistics |+|
* /sfu.ca//for the of .
|−|* arbitrary metadata gateway |+|
|−|* Dspace export |+|
|−|* support alternate stylesheet for PDA viewing |+|
|−|* support for embedded video (youtube style) |+|
|−|* user/article thesaurus/controlled vocabulary |+|
|−|* user tagging |+|
|−|* ACL:based permission classes |+|
|−|* WYSIWYG special character handling (e.g., tinyMCE extension for latek) |+|
|−|* "login as" behavior should be limited in certain contexts |+|
|−|* centralized role management for plugins |+|
|−|* featured article plugin/block |+|
|−|* user friendly error handling/logging |+|
|−|* local private messaging system a la phpBB |+|
|−|* scholar's portal plugin interface (UTL) |+|
|−|* advanced search options / interfaces (eg. zend lucene index plugin) |+|
|−|* mobile / WML plugin (athabasca) |+|
|−|* exporting to LAC web interface |+|
|−|* option to make abstracts a required field for journal sections |+|
|−|* add DOI to citations |+|
|−|* "Advice Tool" - integrating links to publishing references directly into the interface (or in the Help files). - from Mark Weiler, email Nov 6, 2007 |+|
|−|* Allow reviewers to make additional comments after completing their review. |+|
|−|* Add a "email reviewer" icon to the editor interface for each submission. This would allow communication between the reviewer and the editor to take place within OJS and be captured in the History |+|
|−|* Allow Journal Managers to create customized email groups for sending out messages (i.e., they could create an email 'group', select the users to include, and then send to that group whenever required). |+|
Make the CSS and/ or templates editable within the web admin interface -- see WordPress as an example |+|
|−|* Enabling specific reading tools at a section level - Submitted by Mark Weiler (firstname.lastname@example.org ) - Currently, when reading tools are enabled, they are enabled for all the issues (current, future, past) in the entire journal. Thus, the decision to enable reading tools is global (affecting all sections) and is diachronical (affecting all past/ present/ future) issues. It would be useful feature if the journal manager or editor could create sections and specify what reading tools are enabled for those particular |+|
|−|sections and even particular issues. With respects to the reader comments reading tool, this would allow editors to create innovative sections. For example, a journal may want to have a section that is unique in that editorial team actively seeks readers to add comments to the articles. Or a journal that is in the practice of enabling readers to comment for all sections, may wish to create a section that does not have reader comments enabled. |+|
You will find the OJS development roadmap for 2012 below. Please note that these dates are not fixed. OJS development is currently following three development branches: a 'stable' 2.3.x line which includes mainly bugfixes and will be an easy, painless upgrade for existing users of the current release (and who do not need much in the way of new features); a 'development' 2.4 line, which will become the next stable branch; and the 'master' git repository, which includes large-scale changes in the underlying codebase as well as many new features, and is not yet released for production use.
While we do attempt to list all bugs tracked against a given release, quite often a bug report against one release will be ported to another (this is especially the case with 2.3.x bugfixes into the master branch; less so with 2.4 enhancements into the stable branch). This is also the case with some bugs tracked against other applications such as Open Conference Systems. You are encouraged to browse our Bugzilla database fully. Bug entries are typically filed against the version in which the new code is expected to be released.
Releases of OJS in the 2.3.x line will be made when necessary (e.g. based on security issues) or when desired (e.g. when enough minor fixes accumulate that the community will find them broadly useful). These releases are very limited in change scope to keep the testing and release processes to a minimum; for example, no translation updates are allowed for 2.3.x releases. The most important changes in each 2.3.x release are posted on the Recommended Patches page.
This release will include large-scale revamping of the PKP codebase, including the further abstraction of common code from all applications into the PKP WAL that began with the 2.3.0 line of releases; modularization of the remaining OJS codebase (so that components can be better mixed and matched in each application); and further overall code refinements. This release will set the stage for large-scale porting of OMP functionality (user interface improvements; flexible roles; etc.) in the subsequent 3.0 release.