Mapping workflow/process

Initial sketch (where author initiates submission)

  1. 1.
    Author creates new submission (submits a URL and DOI)
    • (Alt: Project submitted independently of authors; authors asked/informed)
  2. 2.
    Author completes a submission form
    • This includes a potential 'request for embargo' or other special treatment
  3. 3.
    Managing Editor(s) (ME) selects projects for review (see Considering papers (projects)),
    • ME fills in additional information (in same 'submission form') explaining why it's relevant, what to evaluate, etc.
    • Decides whether to grant embargo/special treatment, notes this
  4. 4.
    ME assigns Handling Editor (HE) to selected project
  5. 5.
    HE invites Reviewers (aka 'Evaluators')
    • Potential reviewers given full access to (almost) all information submitted by author and ME, notified of any embargo/special treatment granted
    • ME may make special requests to reviewer (e.g., 'signed/unsigned review only', short deadlines, extra incentives, etc.)
  6. 6.
    Reviewer accepts/declines invitation to review, agrees on deadline (or asks for extension)
  7. 7.
    Reviewer completes a review form (atm this includes an out-link to a gdoc or survey, allowing better-formatted content and input options)
  8. 8.
    Reviewer submits evaluation including numeric ratings
  9. 9.
    Optional: Reviewer asks for 'minor revisions and corrections
  10. 10.
    HE collates all reviews for sharing with Author
  11. 11.
    HE shares review with Author
  12. 12.
    If no revisions are requested: Author reads reviews, given two weeks to submit response through the "threaded_discussion"
    • If there is an embargo, there is more time to do this, of course
  13. 13.
    If 'minor revisions' are requested:
    • ... the author has 4 weeks (strict) to make these if they want to, submit a new linked manuscript, and also submit their response to the evaluation.
    • Optional: Reviewers can comment on any minor revisions and adjust their rating
  14. 14.
    HE publishes peer review (with all of the above content) to
    • ... If no embargo, otherwise wait until after embargo ends/authors release it
  15. 15.
    This feeds into our (to be set up) space on​
Why only 'minor revisions'?