A test attempt at moving some of the Product team feature definition and prioritisation into GitHub. The aim is to create more detailed feature definitions, provide more transparent prioritisation and more effective "linking" of product design to development tickets (currently in the xPub project board).
0
stars
0
forks
source link
Define submission, QC, other checks and publication workflow #86
We think we need checks to ensure that submitted papers are not harmful. We also want other QC checks. And we need to convert to XML and check it has been successful, before publication. If converting before checks it might make the process easier/better somehow. But cost is associated with converting papers that then get rejected for being harmful
How many do we predict to get that would be screened out?
What would be associated cost?
What benefits would there be to converting before checks?
Decide whether to convert before or after checks
Who would need to do checks? Scientists or staff?
Does it all depend on the business model? i.e. if BioRxiv have staff to do checks? Or is it a new business that needs to start a contract with Exeter... many questions
Explore what QC checks are needed in more detail
Decide if we want to allow/require author proofing
Who needs ultimate "publish" control?
Would author proofing be the same as revising/updating?
What "QC" integrations are out there and how would they fit into business plan? e.g. iThenticate
We think we need checks to ensure that submitted papers are not harmful. We also want other QC checks. And we need to convert to XML and check it has been successful, before publication. If converting before checks it might make the process easier/better somehow. But cost is associated with converting papers that then get rejected for being harmful