GDPR Reviewer Workflow: Editor sends an invitation to an existing OJS user who already has a Reviewer role

[withanage]

Description:

Editor sends an invitation to an existing OJS user who already has a Reviewer role.

TODOS

• Invited reviewers should show up in the reviewers list.
• The API payload should include title and abstract in step 1.
• Accepting an invitation should return full reviewer details.
• There should be a workflow and API for declining invitations.
• Files should be uploadable via the API.
• It should be confirmed if invited reviewers need to be listed in users. ( as a last bullet point, due to time constraints)
• Eidt invitation mockup
• Reviewer interests

Responsible

1. UI-Figma : @Devika008
2. Development : @ipula
3. Review
   • UI-Library
   • pkp-lib
   • OJS
     -pkp/pkp-lib#11836 Add REVIEWER_ACCESS_INVITATION to email templates ojs#5128
   • OMP
     • pkp/pkp-lib#11836 Add REVIEWER_ACCESS_INVITATION to email templates omp#2136
   • OPS
     • pkp/pkp-lib#11836 Add REVIEWER_ACCESS_INVITATION to email templates ops#1110
4. QA

What application are you using?
OJS, OMP, OPS 3.5+
*

PRS

• create reviewer invitation #11821
• create reviewer invitation steps ui-library#697

[Tribunal33]

Hello @ipula and @withanage, I spoke to Devika about a few things during the flow and she was able to clarify them. I will share my questions and the answers as I understood them. Please correct these @Devika008 if my assumptions were wrong.

I thought reviewers don't have an option to appear on masthead? It is automatic? Why is there a dropdown option here?
A: Currently following existing behavior for invite to role where there is a dropdown but only one option. Seems like a waste of a click to only pick one option. Solution would be to have it automatically pick appear on masthead without a drop down.

Start Date Picker. Can you select a date before current date?
A: Currently the start date is not being preserved when you select a start date before current accepted date but should be. This is a missing requirement for both existing invite user to a role flow and invite reviewer flow.

Follow up on Anti-Jussi comment about decline workflow and also on the reviewer list will they be displayed here with declined message or select reviewer button disabled until next review round? Essentially what happens if review email request is declined
A: Not designed explicitly but should follow same way currently works in invite to role flow with additional step of being added to the reviewer table with declined status.

Can we get the new ROR affiliations added here? Or is it just a free text field?
A: Out of scope

Does this email request show up in the user & roles table for outstanding invitees?
A: Yes after inviting a reviewer it will show up on the User & roles table and be removed if declined. Should work for one-click reviewer setting enabled or disabled.

Here were some additional highlighted todos to cover from the demo

• Update "create new reviewer" title in the case of existing Reviewer
• Update the breadcrumbs to match the flow
• Handle "Decline" scenario
• "files to be reviewed" needs to be added
• Review/revise "reviewer type" UI to match mocks

[withanage]

@ipula

Testing results of Send invitation which has to be corrected.

• Should be in captal

---

• STEP 2 is STEP 1 in figma and it should be in bold.

---

• Required is a * in Figrma it is required. May be a general issue

---

• ORCiD ID information is not visible in the implementation

---

• Following information is visible in figma , but not in the implementation.

---

• ** In Figma instead of starte date , stands yyyy-mm-dd**

---

• Setp 3, should be step 2 and everything should be in capital letters.

---

• Setp 4, should be step 3 and everything should be in capital letters.

---

[withanage]

@ipula

Testing results of accept inviation, which has to be corrected.

---

• Email template has to be adapted. Text is not yet completet.

---

• visually different - reviewer details should be blue and Review Response Date, Review Due Date should be grey.

[withanage]

@Devika008

Devika, in reviewer invitations , we have this application name in some places. Can this be generalized or would you prefer Application specific strings for ojs and omp ?

[asmecher]

I would prefer we didn't refer to the software by name at all unless necessary. Most users will be thinking about the journal, not the platform.

[Tribunal33]

@withanage and @ipula

Sorry I didn't have time to break it down into individual tasks. I wanted to get something to you before the demo. Here is a list of issues. Might be hard to see because it squishes the image. I can mark them down individually as well.

[Tribunal33]

Hellow @withanage and @ipula. Just following up with some extra testing once I have setup public sandbox for ORCiD.

There were some scenarios that I wanted to highlight as some edge cases came up.

1. Adding a reviewer that is already has the reviewer role
2. Adding a the same reviewer that has already declined and eventually accepts overwrites the previous "Sent" entry.
3. Adding a reviewer that has removed the reviewer role previously but may want to become a reviewer again (Currently cannot proceed)
4. Adding an existing user with same ORCID ID seems to search and find the most recent entry but why is it choosing this user over another with the same ORCiD?
5. Using the edit profile roles self-assignment to override future start dates

Here are the ORCiD issues. Not very many extra pages added to check.

1. UI issues

2. Functionality seemed to work except there was one scenario where I was seeing a new page that eventually led to an error but I couldn't reproduce it once I fixed the ORCiD redirect URI. Thought I would highlight it to see if there was any hints that the error gave that would help determine the root cause.

3. Not sure if this is in scope but I couldn't test the 3 dots menu item to send to ORCiD as it doesn't work for public sandbox and a member sandbox needs to have the domain whitelisted.

4. One last issue with dates not lining up. Potential issue arises when the start date is today's date but it is showing no access until the next day. There seems to be a conflct here with server time and local time.