While the new interface looks terrific, there is a problem with the way information about each articles is arranged. Because the author's name follows the blurb, and not the title of the article, the layout creates the impression that the person who wrote the article has written the blurb--and not necessarily the article. More specifically, it looks like 'Davin Heckman' and 'Alex Link' and the rest are authors of the BLURBS, not authors of the essays that are being blurbed.
Can we create a new state in workflows for essays which have been rejected for stand-alone publication, though which might be used for some other purpose? Currently, there are a number of essays in workflows which have been rejected, but we don't want to delete them because one or more of our editors believe that parts of those essays could be used in the future--as glosses, or for some other reason. These essays are clogging up different states of workflows, where they do not belong and where they distract from the essays that require action.
Move from a system where we send email prompts when an essay moves state to a system where there are periodic "digest" reminders, perhaps a weekly statement saying "You have these essays to attend to <...>." The idea is that the prompting emails are useful in the moment but don't help to get people to check in over the long term. The email would be sent according to roles - so editorial core would get a digest email with certain things, thread editors would get a different digest, and so on.
The explicit separation of workflow categories has a number of drawbacks--namely, its difficult to keep track of articles that move between a range of categories, and the distinctions are not necessarily intuitive. Potential solutions include sending out an email prompt every time work is done for an article (every time an article advances into a further category).
As the p2p process is currently set up, reviewers are (at points) unable to view/access their own comments. Immediately after reviewers 'save' their comments, those comments are not visible because they are pending approval. Once approved, those comments are again visible to reviewers. But reviewers who want to alter their comments before they are made public do not have that opportunity. One solution to the issue that was mentioned was eliminating the approval process, though the approval process is useful for reducing spam.
Essays in p2p do not show author name or blurb, so that's good, but our comments (editorial comments) still appear even for those logged in as a p2p reviewer. We need to suppress those - it should show that person's comments only, i.e. a person logged in as p2p reviewer should only see his/her comments.