Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Download reviews #9873

Closed
MrRob100 opened this issue Apr 10, 2024 · 14 comments
Closed

Download reviews #9873

MrRob100 opened this issue Apr 10, 2024 · 14 comments

Comments

@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor

MrRob100 commented Apr 10, 2024

The ability to download reviews in PDF format with the options 'Export author-friendly version of the form, displaying only sections marked as visible to the author' or 'Export editor version of the form, displaying all sections of the review form'. These options will be available from the 'Read review' modal

PRs:
pkp/ojs#4512
#10226
pkp/ui-library#410
pkp/omp#1757

Implementation:

Screenshot 2024-07-18 at 16 13 50

Examples of a downloaded reviews:

Screenshot 2024-07-18 at 16 34 40 Screenshot 2024-07-18 at 16 19 59 Screenshot 2024-07-19 at 11 21 22
@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Devika008 I would like to revisit this and get your ideas about the design of this please :)

@LetyBA
Copy link

LetyBA commented Apr 11, 2024

I find this incredibly helpful, it is in process of development as a plugin?

@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor Author

@LetyBA No, it's in process of development for OJS 3.5 :)

@LetyBA
Copy link

LetyBA commented Apr 11, 2024

We use 3.3.15 but maybe could work hehe or maybe if possible the developers could consider a friendly plugin for older versions... Thank you!

@Devika008
Copy link

@MrRob100 on it! Sharing the designs with you in some :D

@Devika008
Copy link

Devika008 commented Apr 16, 2024

My Proposal

One common concern users frequently voice about OJS is its heavy reliance on clicks and modals, leading to a frustratingly lengthy process just to perform a single action. To address this issue, I've streamlined the interface by significantly reducing the number of modals and clicks required to make decisions. Instead, I've condensed the options into a convenient dropdown menu with Text Only Buttons. This not only enhances user experience but also demonstrates the platform's adaptability, as evidenced by the inclusion of alternative formats beyond just PDF, ensuring future scalability and flexibility.

image

image

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal.

PS: Please mind the proportions as I have used actual button sizes and dropdown on a screenshot so that Its easier to pick dimensions when coding it

@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrRob100 commented Apr 16, 2024

@Devika008 Thanks, this crossed our minds. Great to have your input. Although I've just realised this will use the new side modal style right? In any case, this will make the dev a lot simpler too as we won't have a nested modal @jardakotesovec

@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrRob100 commented Jul 9, 2024

@asmecher About the downloading of reviews in XML format, I want to confirm whether this will be XML in JATS XML format or a more freeform structure. Can you provide a use case for downloading them in XML to give me an idea how to structure this XML for a review.

@asmecher
Copy link
Member

asmecher commented Jul 9, 2024

@MrRob100, that's right, it should be JATS XML. The JATS4R recommendations for peer review provides best practices on this; see: https://jats4r.niso.org/peer-review-materials/
Let me know if you've got any specific questions about this and I'm happy to work through it here!

@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor Author

@MrRob100, that's right, it should be JATS XML. The JATS4R recommendations for peer review provides best practices on this; see: https://jats4r.niso.org/peer-review-materials/ Let me know if you've got any specific questions about this and I'm happy to work through it here!

@asmecher Thanks, I have ran into some issues creating a structure for this XML. The minimum requirements for an article (https://jats4r.niso.org/peer-review-materials/#example-2-minimal-requirements-for-an-article) show that a DOI and publication date need to be provided, but articles at this stage of review don't have those data yet. Are we able to structure the data in a different way for the XML download?

@asmecher
Copy link
Member

@MrRob100, I would suggest getting as close as you can to the JATS4R recommendations, but omitting any data that is not available. These are recommendations, and not subject e.g. to validation errors, but good guidelines for us to shoot for.

@MrRob100
Copy link
Contributor Author

We use 3.3.15 but maybe could work hehe or maybe if possible the developers could consider a friendly plugin for older versions... Thank you!

@LetyBA Apologies for taking a while but this feature is now in an open source plugin that supports OJS 3.3 and 3.4 https://github.com/ubiquitypress/ojs-plugin-download-reviews

@ewhanson
Copy link
Collaborator

Hey @MrRob100, aside from a minor style/formatting issue with pkp-lib, it looks good to me! Once that change has been made, could you rebase it against the main branches again as well a squash down each PR to a single commit? Then assuming no merge conflicts, I should be able to merge it. Thanks!

@ewhanson
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, @MrRob100. All merged! 🎉

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Under Development to Done in SciELO OxS Improvements Nov 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants