Tag: Feature request

gathering designations (to node or not to node)

recent gatherings have been designated node, and some of the older ones (but not all). potential for having all gatherings with a similar designation so they could be brought up in a list? http://www.electronicbookreview.com/node As it stands, a good bit of intra-ebr communications show up when one goes to the above URL.

Emails setting out the move to an open publishing system, and how that will affect our move toward a ‘gathering’ model

Emails setting out the move to an open publishing system, and how that will affect our current move away from threads toward a ‘gathering’ model. from Sandy and Ewan 21 July /// Recommendation and motivation We recommend that EBR be moved to an open publishing system, whether OJS, Scholarworks, or another system. This transition could happen over the course of the coming 6 months. The motivation for this move is threefold: 1. Editorial and peer review workflows are simplified, standardized, and well documented. 2.

text needs to be positioned on the ebr site, under 'about' presumably

ebr (www.electronicbookreview.com) is a member of Open Humanities Press Journals and the Consortium on Electronic Literature (CELL). Its articles are collected in the MLA Directory of Periodicals and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

paragraphs (attached) need to be added to the 'about' page, in our next iteration.

peer review process All articles published in Electronic Book Review have undergone a two-stage review process: anonymous peer review and public peer-to- peer (p2p) review. In the first stage, two or more ebr editors assess whether a submission is potentially suitable for publication. After this initial screening, the submission is subjected to an anonymous peer review by two referees - an editorial board member and another expert, typically a previous contributor.

blurb attribution in new interface

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.

Broken internal links

The majority of links from one ebr article to another appear to be broken.

Holding on to rejected essays.

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.

Wording of submit button on reviewer comment form

Rename the "Save" button on the comment form to "Submit comment and recommendation" when user is logged in as reviewer.

Editor notifications

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.

Managing Workflow

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).