WP Abstracts Issues

[moorepants]

This issue will track a number of issues to send to the WP Abstracts author.

• If an admin submits an abstract for a user via the admin panel, the admin gets the "successful" submission email instead of the abstract author.
• In the backend there needs to be a link to the PDF in the abstract editing window and in the list of abstracts. The only way to get to the PDF is through the attachments tab.
• People often do not fill out all the authors in the form.
• The PDF file should be converted to a consistent filename.
• When an admin edits an abstract and submits it changes the submission date.
• Assign reviewers dropdown should list the First Name Last Name, not the username.
• It would be nice to see a plot with quality on one axis and relevance on another with colors representing accept/reject and something to represent talk type.
• It would be useful to see the number of reviews assigned to each reviewer.
• It should say "Pending Review" instead of "Pending" as authors are sure if it is submitted or not, i.e. "Pending Submission"
• It isn't clear if an admin can swap out a pdf for the submitter. For example, I received a number of incorrectly formatted abstracts, have them email me fixes, and I need to update those.
• There is no way for a reviewer to abstain from a review assignment (due to lack of expertise, etc).
• If you log out of the panel it takes you to the top level page of the site. It should stay on that page.
• Allow multiple user accounts to be attached to a single abstract so that co-authors can see the information.
• The original submission date is not preserved if an admin edits an abstract.
• The submitted can't see the reviewers comments after the review is accepted.
• The acceptance email doesn't have enough variables, so you can customize it. Had to write my own email script.
• Need to be able to download pdf on the abstracts tab.
• https://github.com/moorepants/icsc2017.ucdavis.edu/issues/52

[moorepants]

More:

• Our use case did not use the text form for the abstracts. We needed 3 page mini-papers to be submitted as PDFs and the reviews were about them. The text entry form was useless for us and somewhat of a detractant to users.
• There needs to be a ranking system built in. We had to export the data, parse it all, and then write our own ranking/scoring system based on the ratings. I simple rating would be to allow weights to be applied to the two scores and compute a single score from that. The software should display this scoring graphically. We used a number of different useful plots to view the results.
• There needs to be a way for the admins to then select which papers get what type assigned to them: poster, podium, lightning talk, reject, e.g.

[moorepants]

The submitter selects a presentation type preference. The reviewers may assign sometihng different than their preference. But when you accept the abstract, the result that the submitter sees shows that their abstract was accepted with their desired preference not the presentation type select by the reviewers/admins.