From PKP Wiki
Revision as of 07:11, 29 August 2008 by Kstranac
Milestone 3.0 (Current - Q4 2009)
- Development of a common framework for all PKP software.
- See Modularization of PKP Systems for details.
Milestone 2.3 (Current - Q4 2008)
- Article of the day
- Photos for Masthead
- Allow for short Announcements
- Package OJS as CVS checkout
- For users who will not be using OJS to publish journal co...
- W3C Validator complaints
- Disable user creation/enrollment for disabled roles
- Streamline access for users with a single role
- example wording of path
- Import Timeout Issues
- Report a Bug/Request a Feature for Users
- Include word counts for locale keys and files
- Multiple thesis authors
- Tag-cloud of submission keywords
- List most searched-for words
- Add RSS feed for article comments
- Access to printer-friendly version of article if RT disabled
- Register existing using button does not validate role
- Merge users should selectively transfer subscription
- Add TinyMCE support to reviewer comments
- Extend the xmlGalleys plugin to include support for DocBo...
- Reply to reviewer comments should quote parent title + 'Re:'
- Allow for image uploads with TinyMCE
- Custom Sidebar Block Plugin
- Extend Editor/Author review workflow to include multiple ...
- Expedited Submission Process creates unecessary copies of...
- Italics in titles causing issues with reading tools display.
- Advanced search year is hardcoded in, insufficient for ol...
- moving common templates into the PKP source tree and abst...
Proposed for Future Release
Less linear workflow
- 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)
Better support for pre-prints
- "In press" section for articles that are currently in holding for actual publication.
Thesis Workflow Tool
- OJS as a thesis submission and tracking system.
- SFU Library has a project on the books to develop a more robust thesis workflow tool.
Submission as single file
- 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.
- configurable metadata: mappings to/from common schemas? (eg. DC, METS)
- output in multiple document formats (galleys framework refactor)
- Shibboleth, CAS, WebAuth, SiteMinder, OpenID
- APT/Ubuntu package installation
- lucene-compatible full-text indexing
- EPrints uses LCSH controlled vocab. indexing + local structure
- expose all data as RDF (Hyperjournal)
- SQLite storage backend (through ADODB; speaking of which, an update to bundled ADODB version?)
- custom role permissions
- fully customizable workflow
- direct submission ingestion via, eg. FTP or WebDAV
- "the same article can belong to multiple journals" (TOPAZ)
- "contextualization" features for linked bib data (this seemed like OJS' reading tools?) (Hyperjournal)
- 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
- import transaction/rollback
- more flexible statistics
- 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.