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

Ability to rename peer-review verdict categories #1978

Open
rhb123 opened this issue Jan 19, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Ability to rename peer-review verdict categories #1978

rhb123 opened this issue Jan 19, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
new feature A new thing that doesn't exist yet

Comments

@rhb123
Copy link
Collaborator

rhb123 commented Jan 19, 2021

Currently the peer-review verdicts are pre-set in the system as 'accept', 'minor revisions', 'major revisions' and 'decline'. It would be very useful to be able to rename these as needed as the OLHJ currently has 'accept', 'revisions required', 'revise and resubmit' and 'decline' instead - this current set-up makes it clear that if revise and resubmit is selected, the article is being recommended for further peer-review, and as such hasn't yet actually passed peer-review. However, with the existing categories in Janeway there is no clear and unambiguous 'resubmit for review' verdict, meaning that there may be confusion over whether an article has officially passed peer review or not.

Simply being able to rename these categories would be a useful extra feature to allow journals to fine-tune the system for when coming across from another editorial peer-review workflow set-up. Thanks for your help.

@rhb123 rhb123 added the new feature A new thing that doesn't exist yet label Jan 19, 2021
@ajrbyers
Copy link
Member

with the existing categories in Janeway there is no clear and unambiguous 'resubmit for review' verdict

This is not accidental. These are reviewer recommendations not editor decisions. We don't ask the reviewers to decide if an article requires additional review, that is the editors decision. As an aside "resubmit for review" is ambiguous and causes people to submit new papers to the journal so there are duplicates.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new feature A new thing that doesn't exist yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants