MSID: 99904 Version: 2 DOI: 10.1101/2024.06.13.598855

[fred-atherden]

MSID: 99904

Version: 2

Preprint DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.13.598855

Step 1. Awaiting reviews

Editorial to post reviews via hypothesis

Useful links:

• DocMap: https://data-hub-api.elifesciences.org/enhanced-preprints/docmaps/v2/by-publisher/elife/get-by-manuscript-id?manuscript_id=99904
• New model tracking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_fHaoOy7hjyocptKtVJRijeNpUY4hBS7Ck_aVmx6ZJk/
• Reviews on sciety: https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.1101/2024.06.13.598855

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

• DocMap issue addressing: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVNCwK6EI=/
• Explore DataHub DocMaps API: https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/4c2f0368-babb-4beb-b5b3-497e7e7b0f08/page/ejphD
• Unmatched submissions and preprints: https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/9f86204f-3bf7-477c-9b18-5c5ef141bf69/page/p_gxi57ha93c
• Unmatched manuscripts spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15QcK8w-ssB7109RQEDtFpJPZ0J5HTGxoHa_2TtpMBbg/edit#gid=1336081641

Step 2. Preview reviewed preprint

Production QC content ahead of publication

Instructions:

• QC preview: https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/previews/99904v2
• Update ticket with any problems (add blocked label)
• When QC OK, add QC OK label to ticket and add publication date and time to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1amAlKvdLcaDp5W8Z8g77NmkwbMF5n_u89ArSqPMO8jg
• Move card to next column
• (At end of the day post link in #enhanced-preprint and ask for PDF to be generated)

Useful links:

• Preprint DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.13.598855
• Confirm reviews returned by EPP: https://prod--epp.elifesciences.org/api/reviewed-preprints/99904/v2/reviews
• To update the MECA path in the docmap: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mctCQuNFBjSn97Lihy7_vBO6z7-N-oqyLv4clyi6zHg

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:

• Jenkins pipeline to reindex search can be triggered sooner or monitored here: https://alfred.elifesciences.org/job/process/job/process-reindex-reviewed-preprints/

Step 4: Published! PDF requested

Waiting for PDF to be generated

Useful links:

• PDF tracking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/106_XeDjmuBae7gexOTNzg60lapeqjl2aRn9DzupGyS8/

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!

• [ ] Kettle is on!

[elife-bot]

- error: [aff-multiple-ids] Affiliation contains more than one institution-id element: https://ror.org/03frjya69; https://ror.org/04qh86j58; https://ror.org/05kzfa883 in 1 https://ror.org/03frjya69 https://ror.org/04qh86j58 https://ror.org/05kzfa883 Department of Brain Sciences, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
- error: [aff-multiple-ids] Affiliation contains more than one institution-id element: https://ror.org/03frjya69; https://ror.org/04qh86j58; https://ror.org/05kzfa883 in 2 https://ror.org/03frjya69 https://ror.org/04qh86j58 https://ror.org/05kzfa883 Creative Research Initiative Center for Proteome Biophysics, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
- error: [aff-multiple-ids] Affiliation contains more than one institution-id element: https://ror.org/03frjya69; https://ror.org/04qh86j58; https://ror.org/05kzfa883 in 3 https://ror.org/03frjya69 https://ror.org/04qh86j58 https://ror.org/05kzfa883 Supercomputing Bigdata Center, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
+ info: [article-version-flag] This is preprint version 1.2.
+ info: [permissions-info] This article is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://elifeproduction.slab.com/posts/licensing-and-copyright-rqdavyty#permissions-info
! warning: [ed-report-sig-kwd-presence] eLife Assessment does not have a significance keyword group. Is that correct?

[fred-atherden]

Hi @acollings, in the v1 Assessment we had 'potentially useful' for significance. Here in the v2 we have nothing - is that deliberate?

[acollings]

Hi @fred-atherden it would have been better to have done the same for both (i.e., no term for both, or potentially useful for both), but at this point let's leave it

[fred-atherden]

OK thanks