Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Suggest Reviewers at the Time of Submission #4787

Open
5 tasks
shaharyarahmad opened this issue May 22, 2019 · 19 comments
Open
5 tasks

Suggest Reviewers at the Time of Submission #4787

shaharyarahmad opened this issue May 22, 2019 · 19 comments
Assignees
Labels
Enhancement:2:Moderate A new feature or improvement that can be implemented in less than 4 weeks.
Milestone

Comments

@shaharyarahmad
Copy link

shaharyarahmad commented May 22, 2019

Describe the problem you would like to solve
Our editors have requested a feature to enable authors to recommend 2-3 reviewers at the time of submission. This would facilitate the review process and would be a useful feature for many journals.

Describe the solution you'd like
The feature could be implemented similar to the way we currently list contributors. A similar section could be added in the "Enter Metadata" section of the submission form.
Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 6 01 06 pm

After submission we can list the reviewer suggestions in the 'Metadata' section for each manuscript.

Specs Update - Friday, September 27th, 2024

Workflows Affected by This Change

  • Adding an extra step in the submission workflow.
  • Displaying author-suggested reviewers under participants on submission workflow pages.
  • Showing author-suggested reviewers again during the reviewer assignment process.
  • Introducing a new checkbox on the settings page to enable/disable reviewer suggestions. (Mentioned in other considerations)
  • Migrating the reviewer invitation process to the new user invitation workflow (mentioned in other consideration)

Detailed Specs

Adding an extra step in the submission workflow.

Let's include a 'Suggested Reviewers' section in the submission process, right after 'Comments for the Editors.' This section will gather information similar to what we collect when adding contributors.

image

Image

Displaying author-suggested reviewers under participants on submission workflow pages.

In the submission workflow, we can display the suggested reviewers right below the participants section. Including it in the metadata was suggested, but I feel that might complicate the process unnecessarily.

image

The 'More Options' menu will display additional options, but the 'Add Reviewer' button will be disabled here since we're on the submission page.

image

Once the submission moves to the review stage, we'll keep showing the suggested reviewers below the participants and enable the 'Add Reviewer' button in the 'More Options' section.

image
image

Showing author-suggested reviewers again during the reviewer assignment process.

When the editor clicks 'Add Reviewer' in the workflow, let's display the author-suggested reviewers at the top, followed by other associated reviewers. If an email provided by the author matches an existing reviewer in the journal, we'll show all their details which we currently show like active reviews ; if not, we'll only show the name, affiliation, and interests. In the image below the assumption is that Serena Williams and Richard Tellebaums are not user in the journal. But Kathy Singley was not only suggested by the author but has collaborated with the journal as an author before.

image

Please note that, we can make the UX better by moving the "1 active" tag after the reviewer name than before it

Other Considerations

  1. We'll be updating the "invite reviewers" process to align with the new user invitation workflow. The reviewer details suggested by the author will be pre-filled in the form when the editor sends the invite, removing the need for copy-pasting information.
  2. We'll need a field in Journal Setup to enable/disable author suggestion of reviewers. I think a global checkbox in Settings > Workflow > Review will be enough, and the suggestion box will be hidden for sections that are not identified as peer reviewed in the section settings.

Link to Figma Designs: https://www.figma.com/design/Wf7sDlUg2372jaKKTJ0Mgz/OJS-3.4-3.5?node-id=8874-11387&t=L8lZRbByMRi3ASfK-4

PRs (draft)

pkp-lib --> #10497
ui-library --> pkp/ui-library#426
ojs --> pkp/ojs#4459

@asmecher
Copy link
Member

SciELO also requests this feature, along with the ability to contra-indicate reviewers.

@asmecher asmecher moved this to Backlog in SciELO OxS Improvements May 6, 2022
@NateWr NateWr moved this to Backlog in Author Workflow Sep 13, 2022
@NateWr NateWr added the Enhancement:2:Moderate A new feature or improvement that can be implemented in less than 4 weeks. label Sep 13, 2022
@lpanebr
Copy link

lpanebr commented Sep 14, 2023

Issue #5885 (more automatic reminders) should have orders of magnitude more priority.

That is also true for other reviewer related draft issues like: assign from submission list, single click decline, automatic thank you letter and alternate invite upon decline/delivery, just to mention a few.

This is just based on aspects purely related with making the system more useful and enjoyable to it's key-users (editors and reviewers).

If we also stop to think we'll find some reasons for why asking authors to suggest reviewers should be way low on priority:

  • It's usually a pain for authors so they are naturally prone to suggest colleagues out others from the same institution.
  • Editors have a really hard time finding reviewers. Giving editors a tempting and convenient way to invite author suggested reviewers should be the last feature ojs copies from big publisher systems.

Just add a final note: Scholarone very recently added a dedicated report for journals to be able to gage the source from where editors invite reviewers. One of the sources tracked is Authors suggested reviewers.

@asmecher
Copy link
Member

@alexxxmendonca, I'm curious about what SciELO envisions for this; would authors be suggesting reviewers by name, email, ORCiD? What do editors need in order to efficiently take the author suggestions in cases where the reviewer might not yet be in the system?

@alexxxmendonca
Copy link
Contributor

@asmecher minimum:
First name
Last name
Email
Institution
+(any other fields that OJS may require for account creation)

Desired:
Department
ORCID
Reason for suggesting

@asmecher
Copy link
Member

Thanks, @alexxxmendonca; would there be a need to declare conflicts (or freedom from conflicts), i.e. a relationship between the author and reviewer?

@alexxxmendonca
Copy link
Contributor

@asmecher yes, the "reason" field sort of plays that role. It works well witn ScholarOne (they don't collect conflicts, but they collect reason for recommending or not recommending)

@asmecher asmecher moved this from Backlog to Todo in SciELO OxS Improvements Jan 5, 2024
@asmecher asmecher added this to OSS ORE Aug 15, 2024
@asmecher asmecher added this to the 3.6 milestone Aug 29, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this to Specification Complete in OSS ORE Aug 29, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this to In Progress in PKP Public Roadmap Sep 4, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this from Backlog to Under Research in Author Workflow Sep 4, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this from Specification Complete to UX/UI In Progress in OSS ORE Sep 18, 2024
@Devika008
Copy link

Devika008 commented Sep 18, 2024

Hello,

Based on the above discussions, here's my UX/UI proposal for the feature:

Let's include a 'Suggested Reviewers' section in the submission process, right after 'Comments for the Editors.' This section will gather information similar to what we collect when adding contributors.

image

image

In the submission workflow, we can display the suggested reviewers right below the participants section. Including it in the metadata was suggested, but I feel that might complicate the process unnecessarily.

image

The 'More Options' menu will display additional options, but the 'Add Reviewer' button will be disabled here since we're on the submission page.

image

Once the submission moves to the review stage, we'll keep showing the suggested reviewers below the participants and enable the 'Add Reviewer' button in the 'More Options' section.

image
image

When the editor clicks 'Add Reviewer' in the workflow, let's display the author-suggested reviewers at the top, followed by other associated reviewers. If an email provided by the author matches an existing reviewer in the journal, we'll show all their details which we currently show like active reviews ; if not, we'll only show the name, affiliation, and interests

image

If the editor adds an author-suggested reviewer who isn't already a user in the journal, we'll follow the process of creating a new reviewer. All the form fields will be pre-filled with the information provided by the author to make this process smoother.

image

@asmecher
Copy link
Member

asmecher commented Sep 18, 2024

@Devika008, thanks, that looks good! I have three suggestions:

  • Let's try to cut down on the fields the author needs to fill out per reviewer suggestion. At a glance, I think "Interests" and "Department" are unnecessary. Once a reviewer is invited, we can get them to populate their profile fully.
  • Let's have the process for editors to add a reviewer based on a suggestion pre-fill the most appropriate existing form, rather than come up with another (unfamiliar) form. (This process will be revised by TIB per GDPR already.)
  • We'll need a field in Journal Setup to enable/disable author suggestion of reviewers. I think a global checkbox in Settings > Workflow > Review will be enough, and the suggestion box will be hidden for sections that are not identified as peer reviewed in the section settings.

@lpanebr
Copy link

lpanebr commented Sep 18, 2024

🚨 It should be very friction less for the Editor to see the author's reason for suggesting reviewers, and to differentiate them in added reviewers list.

Please, consider making the "Reason for suggesting reviewer" visible:

  1. below the "Name of Affiliation" (in the sidebar), and
  2. below the "Reviewer name" (in the Added Reviewers list).

image

@Devika008
Copy link

Devika008 commented Sep 19, 2024

Hello @asmecher

Let's try to cut down on the fields the author needs to fill out per reviewer suggestion. At a glance, I think "Interests" and "Department" are unnecessary. Once a reviewer is invited, we can get them to populate their profile fully.

I've revised the form for suggesting a reviewer, streamlining it to just a few key fields: Given Name, Family Name, Email Address, ORCID ID, Affiliation, and the reason for suggesting. This matches the information editors use when inviting
user and reviewer

image

Let's have the process for editors to add a reviewer based on a suggestion pre-fill the most appropriate existing form, rather than come up with another (unfamiliar) form. (This process will be revised by TIB per GDPR already.)

I did not understand this. The form below is the form which is currently used.

image

The form fields I’ve suggested for authors to recommend reviewers are the same ones I’ve proposed for the new reviewer invitation workflow. This approach helps streamline the input process for both editors and authors. You can get a quick look at it here.

image

If the editor chooses an author-suggested reviewer, the form fields will be pre-filled with the author's provided information. However, the reviewer will still need to accept the invite and confirm or update the details, just like any other user.

We'll need a field in Journal Setup to enable/disable author suggestion of reviewers. I think a global checkbox in Settings > Workflow > Review will be enough, and the suggestion box will be hidden for sections that are not identified as peer reviewed in the section settings.

I agree. We can put it in the Setup tab below

image

Also as suggested by @ipanebr I've included the 'reason for suggesting' in the reviewer panel on the side, but I think adding it to the main Reviewer Panel would be too much information for the editor, especially since they're already waiting for acceptance or review.

image

The editor will still see the reason when they click 'Add Reviewers' and view the list of all author-suggested and other reviewers in the journal.
image

In the image above the assumption is that Serena Williams and Richard Tellebaums are not user in the journal. But Kathy Singley was not only suggested by the author but has collaborated with the journal as an author before.

PS: apologies for the quick untidy mockups

@Devika008 Devika008 moved this from Under Research to Under Development in Author Workflow Sep 19, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this from Under Development to Under Research in Author Workflow Sep 19, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this from UX/UI In Progress to Ready for Development in OSS ORE Sep 19, 2024
@Devika008 Devika008 moved this from Under Research to Under Development in Author Workflow Sep 19, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ui-library that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ui-library that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/pkp-lib that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
touhidurabir added a commit to touhidurabir/ojs that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement:2:Moderate A new feature or improvement that can be implemented in less than 4 weeks.
Projects
Status: Under Development
Status: Development In Progress
Status: In Progress
Status: Under Development
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants