Adds a new setting to conceal the editor details when an author is viewing their article's metadata.#4014
Conversation
… is viewing their article's metadata.
ajrbyers
requested review from
Astronaut-resting,
MartinPaulEve,
S-Haime,
StephDriver,
joemull,
mauromsl,
rhb123,
severett89 and
the-blochian
|
@ajrbyers If you've got this one running with an example, would you mind throwing a screenshot on this PR so people can see what screen the change would be on? |
Sure - i've added a couple of screenshots and directions to where this page is found. |
joemull
left a comment
joemull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, this is pretty good.
I am OK with the email address solution you propose if the editors are.
One visibility logic thing I'd rather see changed is how this includes user_is_editor as an override. If I am an editor viewing this page, I will see the editors listed, even if the hide setting is on. This will lead me to question whether the setting is working, because I have no way to verify that the author sees something different from me.
So, I'd suggest adding some explanatory text explaining to editors that authors cannot see the list of editors. This template is re-used in several places, some author-facing and some internal. So the text would need to work in both contexts.
BTW, this was an interesting thing for me to think through, because it goes back to the theme that came out of the copyediting UX research: "seeing what others can see" is often a pickle in Janeway. A good future candidate for a re-usable design element explaining the role visibility of a given thing.
How about wrapping the explanitory note in |
Yes that's what I was imagining! |
|
@ajrbyers errr, actually, the visibility info text would need to be based on |
…nabled, that they can see this but authors cannot
As it turns out, its both. Anyway, commit is in. Editors will now see: 
|
S-Haime
left a comment
S-Haime
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this sounds good as a solution, as long as we (I) document it precisely enough and make clear when what information is visible so editors can make an informed decision. I see merit in being able to fully anonymously do desk rejects in certain fields (youch!) through a generic account, but I feel like this is not a common request.
4 participants
I believe this solution covers most of the request in #3738, as Phillipa is talking about the editors section of the article metadata page. However, in discussion with @mauromsl we noted that an editor may still reveal themselves when rejecting a paper as their email address will be used in the reply-to section.
There is some discussion to be had about how we approach this, do we want to enable the anonymous rejection of papers easily? The public display of an editorial board means that either way this is only partially anonymous as an author will be aware of who the editors are generally.
Personally I think this solution is enough, as editor should be accountable for article decisions, if editors do want to circumvent the reply-to setup they could make use of a generic account to desk reject papers. Open to thoughts on this one. I've assigned everyone as a review so we can chip in our two cents.
Potentially closes #3738
For clarification this page is accessed by authors from the Dashboard (Dashboard > Active Articles > View Status) screenshots with and without edutor details below.
Without editor details:
With editor details:
