Screening Stage: return to authors for corrections for revision decision

[isuscott]

From general Discord Channel initial request:

Would it be possible to add a new revision decision like "return to authors for corrections," which wouldn't count as a proper review or factor into review time but would be executed through the same steps?

• move the article into review
• "Make a Decision"
• Choose "return to authors for corrections,"

[gamboz]

Please can yo help me understand if this is different from a typesetting flow?

It looks to me that this is addressed if, after acceptance, some kind of production-manager (maybe just the editor again) takes the paper in charge and works with the author to fix formal / technical aspects. Isn't this covered by the production flow / typesetting?

Am I missing something? 🙂

[Opussci]

You are thinking of the post-acceptance production process. I think typesetting flow can only be used post-acceptance.
But, our need with this is to address specifically correction of a submission in the pre-review stage, i.e., corrections immediately after submission, before review.

So, the key difference is the timing of this check.

The goal is to catch manuscripts with high potential but significant technical or formal issues (e.g., missing elements, formatting issues) that would hinder the review process. Since these issues often require author input, this step would automatically notify them to rectify the problems within Janeway.

Ideally, the author wouldn't have to re-enter all submission data (keywords, co-authors, etc.); they would only need to update the specific fields, if addressed in the notification email as problematic and upload a revised manuscript file. Once re-submitted, the manuscript would be screened again for issues. If all corrections are ok, the manuscript would progress to the review stage, if not, this step would be repeated.

The ideal workflow for this is just like review rounds in Janeway and it could be executed through almost the same steps of Janeway review workflow, so minimal changes to UI.

To proceed, an editor would:

1. Move the article into the review stage.
2. Add the author as a participant (not as a reviewer).
3. "Make a Decision" Janeway only offers the email template "Return to authors for corrections" because the participant is the author.
4. Author is notified via email.
5. Author log in and on their dashboard finds their submission
6. Author goes through their submission, corrects only what is needed, and upload a new file.
7. Author do submit action.
8. Editor is notified and the process can start a new round if an editor is not satisfied with the corrections..

I hope this clarifies a bit, if you are for a short call to go through all this, I can do that.

@isuscott would you agree with this?

[isuscott]

@Opussci, this is an accurate description of the requested feature:

So, the key difference is the timing of this check.

The goal is to catch manuscripts with high potential but significant technical or formal issues (e.g., missing elements, formatting issues) that would hinder the review process. Since these issues often require author input, this step would automatically notify them to rectify the problems within Janeway.

Our current workaround for journal editors requires entering/exiting production—which is problematic:

• current minor change requests in Submissions workaround
  1. assign self as editor
  2. step forward to Review
  3. request revision in Review
  4. step back to Submissions production stage
  5. remove self from editor once completed

[ajrbyers]

You are thinking of the post-acceptance production process. I think typesetting flow can only be used post-acceptance. But, our need with this is to address specifically correction of a submission in the pre-review stage, i.e., corrections immediately after submission, before review.

So, the key difference is the timing of this check.

The goal is to catch manuscripts with high potential but significant technical or formal issues (e.g., missing elements, formatting issues) that would hinder the review process. Since these issues often require author input, this step would automatically notify them to rectify the problems within Janeway.

Ideally, the author wouldn't have to re-enter all submission data (keywords, co-authors, etc.); they would only need to update the specific fields, if addressed in the notification email as problematic and upload a revised manuscript file. Once re-submitted, the manuscript would be screened again for issues. If all corrections are ok, the manuscript would progress to the review stage, if not, this step would be repeated.

The ideal workflow for this is just like review rounds in Janeway and it could be executed through almost the same steps of Janeway review workflow, so minimal changes to UI.

To proceed, an editor would:

1. Move the article into the review stage.

2. Add the author as a participant (not as a reviewer).

3. "Make a Decision" Janeway only offers the email template "Return to authors for corrections" because the participant is the author.

4. Author is notified via email.

5. Author log in and on their dashboard finds their submission

6. Author goes through their submission, corrects only what is needed, and upload a new file.

7. Author do submit action.

8. Editor is notified and the process can start a new round if an editor is not satisfied with the corrections..

I hope this clarifies a bit, if you are for a short call to go through all this, I can do that.

@isuscott would you agree with this?

@mauromsl correct me if I am wrong but the screening stage we are investigating adding will cover this?

[Opussci]

@ajrbyers @mauromsl
indeed, this stage would be called screening stage. If you are already working on its implementation that is excellent!
If you need any help in brainstrorming the best way to implement it, steps.... just let me know. I would gladly help you.

[isuscott]

indeed, this stage would be called screening stage. If you are already working on its implementation that is excellent! If you need any help in brainstrorming the best way to implement it, steps.... just let me know. I would gladly help you.

Thanks for the added context, @Opussci! I have updated the discussion title accordingly.

@mauromsl correct me if I am wrong but the screening stage we are investigating adding will cover this?
@mauromsl, would a screening stage enhancement cover this requested feature?