elifesciences / publish-reviewed-preprints-issues

MIT License
0 stars 0 forks source link

MSID: 90309 Version: 2 DOI: 10.1101/2023.07.31.551174 #1292

Open fred-atherden opened 1 week ago

fred-atherden commented 1 week ago

MSID: 90309

Version: 2

Preprint DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.31.551174

Step 1. Awaiting reviews

Editorial to post reviews via hypothesis

Useful links:

For trouble shooting (e.g. no Docmaps available):

Step 2. Preview reviewed preprint

Production QC content ahead of publication

Instructions:

Useful links:

Step 3: Awaiting search reindex

This step adds the reviewed preprint to the homepage: https://elifesciences.org

The search reindex is triggered once an hour. We need the reviewed preprint to be indexed as the search application serves the journal homepage.

Useful links:

Step 4: Published! PDF requested

Waiting for PDF to be generated

Useful links:

Step 5: Introduce PDF to data folder and git repo

Upload PDF to relevent folder in git repo https://github.com/elifesciences/enhanced-preprints-data/

Step 6: Done!

elife-bot commented 2 days ago
- error: [journal-ref-article-title] This journal reference (id c49) has no article-title element.
- error: [fig-graphic-conformance] Figure 6. does not have a child graphic element, which must be incorrect.
! warning: [journal-ref-text-content] This journal reference (id c48) has untagged textual content - . 2022, Vol. 23, Page 15553 . Is it tagged correctly?
! warning: [journal-ref-text-content] This journal reference (id c61) has untagged textual content - , tpc.00777.2019. . Is it tagged correctly?
! warning: [ref-year-value-2] Ref with id c49 has a year element which does not contain a digit. Is it correct? (it's acceptable for this element to contain 'no date' or equivalent non-numerical information relating to year of publication)
+ info: [article-version-flag] This is preprint version 1.4.
fred-atherden commented 2 days ago

Hi @acollings, the v1 has convincing whereas this v2 has solid. Should we make any changes here? Thanks!

acollings commented 2 days ago

Hi @fred-atherden I don't think this was completely intentional but I think we should leave it in this case. Thanks!

fred-atherden commented 2 days ago

OK thanks