Difference between revisions of "Tech Committee Meeting Minutes 19 April 2018"

From PKP Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Other topics)
(In Attendance)
Line 1: Line 1:
== In Attendance ==
== In Attendance ==
Notetaker: JM
== Quick Updates ==
== Quick Updates ==

Latest revision as of 09:05, 19 April 2018

In Attendance


Notetaker: JM

Quick Updates

  • Question Every Month
    • What have you been working on lately?
      • Dulip : ORCID Plugin, Conceptualize OJS 3 Update, Lens developments
      • Chris: OCD
        • updated to 3.1.1. Trying to clean up warnings. Nothing functionally broken.
      • James: GDPR report; Stats Handbook; documentation framework
      • Kenton: OJS 3.x upgrades
      • Alex: Upgrading SciELO's test instance to v3.1.1; v2.x had slow performance issues last week, solution found: change read/write priority
      • Alec: Automatic PDF document conversion and Hypothes.is in the workflow
        • This is a server-side conversion tool, using Open Office. Might be a really nice small plugin for automatic galley creation, for OJS users who can set it up server-side.
      • Clinton: Spam commenter(s) abusing a hosted journal despite ReCAPTCHA v2 and email verification.
        • Coming from many different IP addresses; must be a botnet.
        • Found a single email domain and have blocked that.
        • Still not entirely solved.
        • Possibly use the stopforumspam plugin; may not do anything though as these samples aren't coming back as red-flagged.
        • Proposed solutions: investigate akismet or other captcha options; email blacklists.
      • Svantje: proposal for EU project, with EKT
        • Helping authors manage research data, and collaborating how that is stored wrt/OJS
        • Dataverse/SWORD implementation may be worth investigating
        • Question: what about data management/decentralization and privacy regulations?
      • Marc: Working on upgrading to OJS 3.1.1 with Docker; have run into a Docker-specific issue, working on a resolution.
  • Question of the Month
    • Let's talk about preprints: author submissions and institutional repositories and peer review
      • Dulip : preprints give time for technical staff to explore the manuscripts beforehand and to get ready for challenges.
      • Chris: We are using CommentPress and Commons in a Box for shared development of scholarly output; I also used to be part of a conspiracy to push toward post-pub peer review and metajournals, but the ScienceOnline meltdown took ScienceSeeker down with it.
      • James: NTR on this question.
      • Alex: the discussion and outcomes is happening as we speak and we don't know yet all the impacts of preprints and the peer review process as we know it. Generally speaking, everyone agrees that peer review as we know it will change; Journal roles might get shifted from "publishers" to "validators"
        • Changes are happening as we speak. We don't know the degree to which things are changing, what the impact will be, etc.
        • The role of the journal may change a little. Today, the main role of the journal is to publish content. With preprints, an article can be available before it is published by the journal. The journal will then have a "validator" role rather than a "publisher" role.
        • Author/journal relationships may also change. Journals may actively look for authors.
        • Peer review as we know it has been a target for criticism in recent years. With preprints, readers will be able to check whether review has had any sort of effect on the review version.
      • Clinton: actively seeking to get author's copy into an IR as a "preprint", though that usually happens well after the article has been published.
      • Alec: Antti-Jussi has been working in this area. There may even be a pre-print plugin available somewhere on the forum.
      • Marc: 3 or 4 journals using preprints right now.

GDPR Compliance

  • PKP Policy Guide For review
    • Hoping to release, at least provisionally, next week
  • Github Project
    • Should anything here be targeted for 3.1.1-1?
      • consent statement and privacy statement bugs at a minimum; possibly a better cookie policy integration
    • Should we be providing code changes for OJS 2.x?
      • No - workarounds are available where required, and upgrading will be recommended.

Release Progress


  • Keeping `ojs-stable-3_1_1` and `omp-stable-3_1_1` as close to `master` as possible via cherry-picking until the codebases start to diverge (probably soon).


  • Surprise: gitbook moved all our documentation to a "legacy" subdomain
  • Already working to replace it:
    • All docs stored in Github, as markdown files.
    • All docs will be hosted at docs.pkp.sfu.ca.
    • All managed with Markdown + Jekyll.
    • There will be different "hubs": a developer hub; an administator's hub; etc.


  • Reviewed the results of the last round (thanks as always UofA); fixed some already, filed others in github.
  • Considering emails/notifications for an upcoming round (needs consideration of how).

Other topics

  • There's a partner in Quebec that is contributing SQL Server support. They are also updating ADODB and introducing it as a composer dependency.

Next Meeting

May 17th, 8am Pacific