GeologyRocksReviewing process
So the first batch of reviews we attempted here have just happened (or are currently underway). It went OK. The reviewers were quick to respond, the material was sound and the time it took not too bad. There were a few issues though:
- The PDFs I generated couldn't be read by the author. This was strange, but not a big deal.
- It still took me a substantial amount of time just to create the necessary audit trail and email people.
Point 2 is my main concern. I could've edited the material and published it in the time it took to send out emails and do the reviews. That's not the point of the review system, but time is of the essence.
I think for now, the system we have in place is good enough. It has flaws (i.e. it relies on me!), but it gets the job done. However, in future it would be good to automate the whole process. Here are some random (and probably incoherent) thoughts I had on the matter:
- Need a workflow that the author can chnage from "Draft" to "For Review"
- When material is set to "For Review", editors should be emailed to say there's new content
- The editors should be able to select the correct number of reviewers from the page and click a button. This will kcik off the review process by:
- emailing the author to say the material is being reviewed
- email the reviewers asking them to review the material
- make a note in the log to say that the material wasready for review and note the reviewers (note that this may change if the reviewers can't do the review)
- The reviewers should be able to edit/comment on the material via their web browsers
- When they are (both) done, the material's status is changed to "Reviewed". This emails the editor, who can check it and select the appropriate response for the material (rejected, approved, etc) and change the status
- An email is sent to the user depending on the new status, which will tell them the outcome and what to do next.
- The material is then left or published depending on what happens. Any updates to the material by the author will trigger an email to the editor (this assuems the author is responding to the outcome)
- The above should all be done via the browser and logged. The reviews could be made public afterwards?
Any thoughts on my random thoughts, let me know 
- Jon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Send to friend
Comments
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Re: point 1
Wed, 11/07/2007 - 00:39Jon,
Re: point 1. I think that the pdf issue is a gmail thing. As gmail has just let me have access via IMAP I tried downloading my gmail using thunderbird rather than the gmail web interface and can now read the pdfs.
Hypocentre
Geologists like a nappe between thrusts
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Re: point 2
Wed, 11/07/2007 - 00:59Re: point 2
It is interesting how convoluted it becomes when you write it all down.
Whilst reviewing via a web browser is good acrobat style notes and comments or word track changes / comments might be more useful for reviewers/reviewees
Updates raise other issues. One thing I can across when writing my article was that I felt it useful to add a couple of glossary items on terms that I'd used but this creates a need to update entries with links once the final urls are known. Should there be an update flag indicating minor revision (no re-review necessary) and major revision (new content may require review)? Would this be open to abuse??
Geologists like a nappe between thrusts
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
IMAP
Wed, 11/07/2007 - 06:49As gmail has just let me have access via IMAP I tried downloading my gmail using thunderbird rather than the gmail web interface and can now read the pdfs.
Oh! IMAP access! I read that some people had started getting that. *wanders off to gmail*
Geologists are gneiss!!
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Process
Wed, 11/07/2007 - 06:57It is interesting how convoluted it becomes when you write it all down.
Reviewing always is. However, most of the above is automated and carried out by the web server. From a person point-of-view they would see very little.
Whilst reviewing via a web browser is good acrobat style notes and comments or word track changes / comments might be more useful for reviewers/reviewees
Yes, I agree. I was hoping I could come up with a mechanism to add little comment bubbles (or something) to material while it was being reviewed. A reviewer could then just write a note or edit material directly. The track changes kind-of-thing can already be done with "diff"-ing the content (only I have access to diff currently, I think).
Updates raise other issues. One thing I can across when writing my article was that I felt it useful to add a couple of glossary items on terms that I'd used but this creates a need to update entries with links once the final urls are known. Should there be an update flag indicating minor revision (no re-review necessary) and major revision (new content may require review)? Would this be open to abuse??
I agree completely. I little box saying "Trivial change", such that material is not put back into review. I don't think it would be abused as all updated content is marked as such so reviewers and editors (and myself) would all know about it.
As for the URLs, all content is given a "proper" URL on first submission now. Check out your unpublished content: it should have a nice URL already. The URLs are easy to guess: /content-type/title. I'll add something to the help pages explaining this.
Currently any updated content is added to the moderation queue while the "old" content stays published. I'll have to come up with a process for getting this checked, but I think moderators/reviewers can just re-publish it if there are no major changes. I think Diff might be useful here....
Thanks for the comments!
Geologists are gneiss!!