Add draft instructions for editors

[davidlmobley]

This adds draft instructions for editors; not entirely certain I've gotten it to behave properly with the headers/etc., but at least the content is what I intend.

The idea here is to supplement what we're working on in #86 with something which actually tells editors what to do when they get a manuscript. We will probably need similar content for reviewers.

We need to sort out whether we are going to tell the associate editor to make a decision after receiving the reviews, or to report back to the Lead Editor and have the lead make the decision. The current draft of the bylaws in #86 is somewhat ambiguous but if anything implies that the associate just reports back. I'm not a huge fan of this (except if the associate thinks it's needed!) since it just adds an extra step which means more delay. My suggestion would be that we have the associate just decide directly, unless the decision is to reject, in which case the Lead should be brought in (since the Lead approved the presubmission letter). OK with me adjusting this AND the bylaws (#86) along those lines, @mrshirts ?

I'll open a separate issue about what information editors will send to authors when they request reviews.

[mrshirts]

Hmm. I think I approved a different PR than I intended (I mean to approve the authors one) and not quite sure how reverting works. Still some discussion here.

My suggestion would be that we have the associate just decide directly, unless the decision is to reject, in which case the Lead should be brought in (since the Lead approved the presubmission letter).

I think there could be some advantage to having a consistency with a single person approving, though I would imagine that it would usually be "Go ahead and approve", with an occasional ("Do you think this document is ready now?")

Operationally, I would imagine that it would essentially be the associate editors approving.

Thoughts from other people? How do other journals do it?

[dmzuckerman]

We should have a default time-frame for reviews - perhaps 3 weeks? I assume this is a setting within Scholastica. We can also give guidance for extra time - perhaps an additional 3 weeks.

[dmzuckerman]

Regarding decision by associate editor, Michael has a point about consistency. At least in the early stages, it may be better to have formal acceptances by the lead editor. That will also guarantee section leads get their eyes on every accepted paper ... and so no surprises.

[davidlmobley]

OK, so I agree with these points, so I would update to:

• [x] Give default time frame for reviews (3 weeks)
• [x] Give guidance for extra time (an additional three weeks?) when it is needed
• [x] Have associate editor provide recommendation to lead who will take final action (normally just doing as associate recommends, but this also ensures that the lead knows what is coming through the pipeline, is able to do things like suggest connections/cross-references between pending articles, etc.; I can mention this as an incentive)

[mrshirts]

Those three things sound good. I like short review cycles.