Kotahi issueshttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues2024-03-28T03:54:25Zhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1521OpenAI-Kotahi production editor integration2024-03-28T03:54:25ZRyan Dix-PeekOpenAI-Kotahi production editor integration1. Update Cokoserver (latest version) to ensure that this renders as fast as possible.
1. Add Open AI chat, and 'rendered' Preview to Production editor per article.
2. Label as a Beta feature.1. Update Cokoserver (latest version) to ensure that this renders as fast as possible.
1. Add Open AI chat, and 'rendered' Preview to Production editor per article.
2. Label as a Beta feature.MRdevTaggMRdevTagghttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1547Email notification data mapping issue2024-03-27T12:08:56ZRyan Dix-PeekEmail notification data mapping issueI received a 'Submitted review' email notification and none of the manuscript metadata was present in the email I received.
## Expected behaviour
Metadata should be mapped and displayed in the email notification I receive.
## Current...I received a 'Submitted review' email notification and none of the manuscript metadata was present in the email I received.
## Expected behaviour
Metadata should be mapped and displayed in the email notification I receive.
## Current behaviour
Metadata mapped in the email notification template is not being input into the email notification sent from Kotahi
Example; https://kotahi.kotahidev.cloud68.co/kotahi/versions/dbd0fdef-d63d-4bba-92aa-c30bdf8383cb/decision
## Steps to reproduce
1. On Kotahidev; complete a submission form and submit
2. Go to Control>Decision page
3. Select a decision (accept, revise or reject) and submit
4. navigate to email inbox
5. open email and metadata is missing
## Other information
- The issue persists for all `journal` archetype-specific email notifications; Submitted manuscript, Submitted review and Reviewer rejects an invitation to review.
- If the email is sent from the Control panel>Tasks&Notifcation page manually the metadata is mapped and displayed in the email notification as intended.
- the Configuration?Emails>'Submitted review' should be changed to 'Submitted decision' (there is no trigger events for a submitted review).
![Screenshot_2024-02-29_at_08.15.25](/uploads/f030936882999beb6b9189bef83cf39d/Screenshot_2024-02-29_at_08.15.25.png)Vignesh DevendranVignesh Devendranhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1535Research options to convert binary math (MathType)2024-03-27T12:06:00ZRyan Dix-PeekResearch options to convert binary math (MathType)The purpose of this task is to investigate the work required to convert binary math and allow the output to be accessible in Wax.
Some initial work was done by Suki and @bharathydasan in this regard; https://gitlab.coko.foundation/XSwe...The purpose of this task is to investigate the work required to convert binary math and allow the output to be accessible in Wax.
Some initial work was done by Suki and @bharathydasan in this regard; https://gitlab.coko.foundation/XSweet/XSweet/-/blob/mtef/applications/math/mtef/README.md
It's not clear if we can use/build on this code to support the conversion of MathType content.Dan ViselDan Viselhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1557Reviewers should only be able to be invited manually or using the Reviewer in...2024-03-27T11:47:01ZRyan Dix-PeekReviewers should only be able to be invited manually or using the Reviewer invitation## Expected behaviour
An editor should only be able to invite a single user once to participate in a round of review.
## Current behaviour
Currently, a user editor can be assigned manually and using the 'Reviewer invitation' email noti...## Expected behaviour
An editor should only be able to invite a single user once to participate in a round of review.
## Current behaviour
Currently, a user editor can be assigned manually and using the 'Reviewer invitation' email notification template.
## Steps to reproduce
1. Assign a reviewer from the Control panel>Teams page>Invite reviewers section, ensure 'Email notification' is unselected
2. Assign the same user from the Control panel>Teams page>Invite reviewers section and select 'Email notification' for the Invite reviwer modal.
3. Notice both users appear in the Control panel>Teams page>Reviwer stutas>'Invited' column
## Possible solution
- A user should only be able to be assigned once to a round of review. The user card should only appear once in the 'Invited' list (column).
- If a user is invited they should be able to receive multiple email notifications to participate in a single round of review.
- If a user is invited manually and sent a 'Reviewer invitation' email notification thereafter, the same user card should be updated to reflect 'Invoted via email'.
![Screenshot_2024-03-11_at_08.02.36](/uploads/b6c2c1cf2e7d5dc6c7316fcff1d947a1/Screenshot_2024-03-11_at_08.02.36.png)Vignesh DevendranVignesh Devendranhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1555Unsubmitted reviews are not being saved2024-03-27T11:39:54ZRyan Dix-PeekUnsubmitted reviews are not being saved## Expected behaviour
Reviwes accessing and editing the Review page>Review tab should be able to edit form content, end session and return to their review and data should be saved and editable.
## Current behaviour
Data input into th...## Expected behaviour
Reviwes accessing and editing the Review page>Review tab should be able to edit form content, end session and return to their review and data should be saved and editable.
## Current behaviour
Data input into the review page is not saved and not submitted is not saved when the reviewers ends the session.
## Steps to reproduce
<!-- Required. Provide a link to a live example or screenshots, and the steps to reproduce this bug.]-->
1. Assign a reviewer to a review
2. Reviewers access the review page and inputs data into any field
3. navigate to the dashboard or click refresh
## Possible solution
Data should saved on blurVignesh DevendranVignesh Devendranhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1548Reference parser modal display enhancements2024-03-27T11:39:51ZRyan Dix-PeekReference parser modal display enhancements# Improve the user experience of the parser modal for editing Original, AnyStyle and/or Crossref citations
## Context
The user experience of working with the 'Orginal' citation is challenging. Currently, if you edit the 'Orginal' citati...# Improve the user experience of the parser modal for editing Original, AnyStyle and/or Crossref citations
## Context
The user experience of working with the 'Orginal' citation is challenging. Currently, if you edit the 'Orginal' citation when editing any form field the content displayed is blank and changes made are saved and displayed on blur. Also, (n.d.) is displayed because there is no date provided.
A suggestion was made to combine the 'Aystyle' and 'Original', however, we know that data can be lost when using the AnyStyle parser (or any parser) - so there is value in keeping the original citation as a visual reference for users. So we should retain the display of the Original, AnyStyle and Crossref selection options as per the current state.
## Proposal
To add the 'Original' display alongside an 'edit view' of the citation for the Original, AnyStyle and Crossref selection options.
We could also improve the experience of editing the Original form by prepopulating the field using the AnyStyle parser.
## Solution
1. Display the 'Original' citation below the edited view.
2. The 'Original' citation should be visually distinguishable from the edited display and remain static.
3. Edits made to data capture in the form should be reflected in the 'edit view' in real time.
![Screenshot_2024-02-29_at_09.25.13](/uploads/c6466130a8f6e4b2f73661e80f9f4d07/Screenshot_2024-02-29_at_09.25.13.png)Vignesh DevendranVignesh Devendranhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1566[Sciety-Colab] Invited author assigned as reviewer2024-03-27T11:28:29ZRyan Dix-Peek[Sciety-Colab] Invited author assigned as reviewer## Expected behaviour
When inviting authors to participate in a peer review; multiple user users (existing/new) can be invited, the user who accepts the invitation should be assigned as the author. A record of the accept or reject actio...## Expected behaviour
When inviting authors to participate in a peer review; multiple user users (existing/new) can be invited, the user who accepts the invitation should be assigned as the author. A record of the accept or reject action is displayed in the Decision>Completed reviews section.
## Current behaviour
When inviting authors to participate in a peer review; if an 'Author invitation' email notification is sent, the second time the author notification is sent to new (different) user, the user appears to be assigned as a reviewer on the Teams>Reviewer Status section.
## Steps to reproduce
1. Editor sends an author invitation to user 1
1. Ueer 1 accepts author invitation
2. Editor sends an author invitation to user 2
3. User 2 is assigned as reviwer on the Control panel>Teams>Reviwer status (review does not appear in Users 2 Dashboard>To review list)
## Possible solution
Ahen an author is invited, this action should not be recorded and displayed on the Team>Reviwer status kanban board.
![Screenshot_2024-03-22_at_11.54.48](/uploads/5d16e75d6082a7cb0113549b690b8b26/Screenshot_2024-03-22_at_11.54.48.png)
![Screenshot_2024-03-22_at_12.13.28](/uploads/97d0368b60e450909718a7316ea61b10/Screenshot_2024-03-22_at_12.13.28.png)Vignesh DevendranVignesh Devendranhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1498Minimise sidebar2024-03-27T10:01:40ZAdam Hydeadam@coko.foundationMinimise sidebarThe left sidebar occupies alot of room. We could maximise space by adding a 'minimise funciton'. THe functionality in gitlab itself looks good to me and we should emulate this. Click on the icon that looks like this:
![Screenshot from 2...The left sidebar occupies alot of room. We could maximise space by adding a 'minimise funciton'. THe functionality in gitlab itself looks good to me and we should emulate this. Click on the icon that looks like this:
![Screenshot from 2024-01-09 23-31-26.png](/uploads/ae7086c7b65b8035f7fc10250acfbba7/Screenshot_from_2024-01-09_23-31-26.png)
the behaviour is in 3 parts:
1. clicking makes the sidebar dissapeear
2. hover to the left brings the sidebar back so you can choose a sidebar menu item, then mousing out it re-minimisies
3. clicking on the same icon after doing (2) and it sets the sidebar back to always visiblev3.1.0MRdevTaggMRdevTagghttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1525[BPSC] Update import query2024-03-20T13:14:58ZRyan Dix-Peek[BPSC] Update import queryUpdate the search query on targeting the BPSC group only, on the NCRC instance; https://app.ncrc.kotahi.cloud/bpsc/
Updated query; [JHU_Bat_Spillover_Search_Query_v3_020924.docx](/uploads/56912d1c1212a8eb55425836830bbc7c/JHU_Bat_Spillov...Update the search query on targeting the BPSC group only, on the NCRC instance; https://app.ncrc.kotahi.cloud/bpsc/
Updated query; [JHU_Bat_Spillover_Search_Query_v3_020924.docx](/uploads/56912d1c1212a8eb55425836830bbc7c/JHU_Bat_Spillover_Search_Query_v3_020924.docx)
Request from the client; to ensure that updating the query has no impact on the existing data, manuscript selection or archived manuscripts.BPSC Collaborative form field typePankaj KandpalPankaj Kandpalhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1478[ejpimport] Order on publishing to retained on publish action2024-03-20T08:32:57ZRyan Dix-Peek[ejpimport] Order on publishing to retained on publish actionThe order of review, assessment and author response data is important to the elife editorial team. This data is published via Hypothesis, which reorders the data for display in bioRxiv>TRip. Only if field; Include when sharing or publish...The order of review, assessment and author response data is important to the elife editorial team. This data is published via Hypothesis, which reorders the data for display in bioRxiv>TRip. Only if field; Include when sharing or publishing? = 'Always' or 'Ad hoc' the following order be adhered to;
1. Assessment (Decision form field)
1. Review 1 (Review form field)
1. Review 2 (Review form field)
1. Review 3 (Review form field)
1. Author response (Submission form field)
When publishing;
- The order of fields within the `Decision` or `Submission` forms should be retained where there are multiple fields set to be published.
- Order reviews based on the `Review` title e.g. 'Review 1' appears at the top, in descending order.
The order is reversed when data is displayed as an annotation in Hypothesis. Configuration>Publushin>Hypotheis>'Reverse the order of Submission/Decision form fields published to Hypothesis' setting controls the reverse ordering.DocMaps pluginPankaj KandpalPankaj Kandpalhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1481[ejpimport] Create link from DOI2024-03-20T08:32:53ZRyan Dix-Peek[ejpimport] Create link from DOICurrently, we import the DOI only; 10.1101/2023.08.28.555217
A link needs to be structured from this data captured in the `submission.doi` field e.g. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.28.555217 needs to be created from the DOI (10.1101/20...Currently, we import the DOI only; 10.1101/2023.08.28.555217
A link needs to be structured from this data captured in the `submission.doi` field e.g. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.28.555217 needs to be created from the DOI (10.1101/2023.04.17.537164).DocMaps pluginAlexandros GeorgantasAlexandros Georgantashttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/765Review page UX/UI overhaul2024-03-20T08:32:33ZRyan Dix-PeekReview page UX/UI overhaulUpdate Storybooks components;
1. [Review form](https://story-book-kotahi.netlify.app/?path=/story/review-reviewform--base)
1. [Review metadata](https://story-book-kotahi.netlify.app/?path=/story/review-reviewmetadata--base)
UI; [Figma b...Update Storybooks components;
1. [Review form](https://story-book-kotahi.netlify.app/?path=/story/review-reviewform--base)
1. [Review metadata](https://story-book-kotahi.netlify.app/?path=/story/review-reviewmetadata--base)
UI; [Figma boards](https://www.figma.com/file/8XdAAiZTvjXCOC6ZYJ66yt/Kotahi?type=design&node-id=2981%3A6342&mode=design&t=RurHjxwR7sVEgJzX-1)
User stories;
- As a reviewer, I need to access and clearly distinguish between manuscript content and metadata in order to draft my review.
- As a reviewer, I need to read individual reviews submitted by other reviewers when drafting my own submission.
- As a reviewer, I need to read individual reviews submitted by other reviewers after submitting my response.
- As a reviewer, after I have submitted my review, I'm invited to read a Decision/Report shared by the Editorial team.
- As a reviewer, I have requested that my review submissions remain anonymous. I need to be assured this request will reflect on the platform throughout my participation as a reviewer.
Location for UI overhaul; Review page
![Screenshot_2023-06-20_at_14.05.03](/uploads/24bf53427e6e7beab4a4fe4f5414dc43/Screenshot_2023-06-20_at_14.05.03.png)CoLab Biophysics v6Vaibhav RathoreVaibhav Rathorehttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1343Author Proofing Workflow2024-03-20T05:19:18ZRavindhar RangarajanAuthor Proofing Workflow**1. Introduction**
The purpose of this specification document is to outline the requirements and functionality of the Author Proofing Module for the Nvcleus Journal Publishing Platform. This module facilitates the author-proofing workfl...**1. Introduction**
The purpose of this specification document is to outline the requirements and functionality of the Author Proofing Module for the Nvcleus Journal Publishing Platform. This module facilitates the author-proofing workflow after the production process is complete. The Author Proofing Module will utilize the Wax Editor with limited functionality, supporting only suggesting mode and comments.
**2. Scope**
The Author Proofing Module will provide authors with a user-friendly interface to review and provide feedback on the finalized version of their published article. It will enable authors to suggest edits, make comments, and collaborate with the editorial team to ensure the accuracy and quality of the published work.
**3. Requirements**
3.1 Author assignment
Currently, Kotahi has the option only to assign editors and reviewers. We need the option to assign authors to the specific manuscript from the control window as shown below.
![Screenshot_4](/uploads/572713cca2c54038230a3f6b140f81ee/Screenshot_4.png)
If the manuscript has been submitted by an author, the respective author's name should be available by default under the Authors section.
**3.2 Author proofing stage**
Once the production process is completed, there will be a section under control options, where the journal manager or admin can move a submitted manuscript to the author-proofing stage as shown below. This stage will be enabled only when the production process is complete.
![Screenshot_5](/uploads/5a03df93191b9cf3e5768096239a803f/Screenshot_5.png)
**3.3 Wax Editor Integration**
The Author Proofing Module will utilize the Wax Editor, which supports only suggesting modes and comments. The following requirements should be considered:
**3.3.1 Suggesting Mode**
- The Wax Editor will be configured to allow authors to suggest edits to the text without directly modifying the published version.
- Authors can insert, delete, or modify text while clearly indicating the changes they propose.
- Suggested edits should be visually distinguishable from the original text which is already available in the wax editor.
**3.3.2 Comments**
- Authors and the editorial team should be able to add comments to specific sections of the article.
- Comments should provide a text input field for entering the comment text.
- Comments should be visible to all relevant parties and easily distinguishable from the main text.
- These are also already available in the Wax editor.
**3.4 Author Proofing Workflow**
The Author Proofing Module will follow a structured workflow to ensure efficient collaboration between authors and the editorial team. The workflow will include the following steps:
**3.4.1 Notification**
Authors will receive a notification when the production process is complete and their article is ready for proofreading.
The notification will contain instructions on accessing the Author Proofing Module and rules set by the publisher.
**3.4.2 Accessing the Module**
Authors will be able to access the Author Proofing Module through their Nvcleus account.
Upon logging in, authors will be presented with a list of their published articles that are ready for proofreading.
![proof_reading](/uploads/1a33e4884601ac0f8ed6acbaa9160dc3/proof_reading.jpg)
Clicking on the manuscript title will open the wax editor in suggesting mode.
**3.4.3 Reviewing the Article**
Authors can select an article from the list to enter the proofreading interface.
The article will be displayed in the Wax Editor with the finalized version.
Authors can navigate through the article, read the text, and make suggestions or comments as necessary.
Only the suggesting mode will be enabled and the author cannot have the option to change it to editing mode.
**3.4.5 Submitting Suggestions and Comments**
Author Proofing Form: Just like the reviewer form, we should have an author proofing form where the author can submit the comments and any supplementary files and complete the author proofing stage. Only this is done, the editorial team can take it up for review.
**3.4.5 Editorial Team Review**
The editorial team will receive notifications when authors submit their suggestions and comments.
The team can access the Author Proofing Module and view the author's feedback on the article.
The team can respond to suggestions and comments, provide clarifications, or request further revisions.
**4. Conclusion**
The Author Proofing Module for the Nvcleus Journal Publishing Platform will provide a robust workflow for authors to review and provide feedback on the finalized version of their articles. By leveraging the Wax Editor's suggesting mode and comment features, authors can suggest edits, make comments, and collaborate effectively with the editorial team. The module aims to enhance the overall quality and accuracy of published articles while ensuring a user-friendly experience for authors and the editorial team.https://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1536[ejpimport] Update import script2024-03-19T15:24:23ZRyan Dix-Peek[ejpimport] Update import scriptGoals;
- Support to have changes made to the data mapping on imports _ we should be able to identify changes made to data mapping in elifes datahub that breaks import into Kotahi.
- Import should be running. Only importing objects that ...Goals;
- Support to have changes made to the data mapping on imports _ we should be able to identify changes made to data mapping in elifes datahub that breaks import into Kotahi.
- Import should be running. Only importing objects that have review and/or reviews + assessments.
- Update imports. Known issues; unable import preprint version URL, publishing or peer review state data.
## Introduced changes
The result of the overall refactoring of the plugin introduced changes in the way the plugin should be configured.
When it comes to deployments, the sys-admin should be responsible to always pull the latest version of the plugin from its [repo](https://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/import-from-docmap/-/tree/main)
The path on host where the code of the plugin resides should be mounted in Kotahi's server container e.g. `host_plugin_path:/home/node/app/config/plugins/import-from-docmap`
A configuration file should exist also on the host's side with content:
```
module.exports = {
'import-from-docmaps': {
dataHubURL:
'URL value of Data hub',
dataHubUsername: 'given_username',
dataHubPassword: 'given_password',
crossrefURL: 'URL value of Crossref',
},
}
```
The above file should also be mounted in Kotahi's server container e.g. `host_config_file_path:/home/node/app/config/local.js`
Also a file which will represent the plugins_manifest should be mounted in the container:
```
[
{
"groupName": "kotahi",
"plugins": [
{
"name": "Import preprints from DataHub Docmaps",
"folderName": "import-from-docmap"
}
]
}
]
```
That file should be mounted `host_manifest_path:/home/node/app/config/plugins/plugins_manifest.json`Alexandros GeorgantasAlexandros Georgantashttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1170DOI's not registering on Crossref for Aperture Neuro2024-03-15T09:22:19ZBeau HaugenDOI's not registering on Crossref for Aperture NeuroHello Kotahi,
Manuscript #76 is not registering the DOI correctly.
![Screenshot__53_](/uploads/bce4c1e304bb67931d59554be21031c6/Screenshot__53_.png)
![Screenshot__54_](/uploads/7e74e3c03d2fe4013b702a0e05b44cee/Screenshot__54_.png)
I...Hello Kotahi,
Manuscript #76 is not registering the DOI correctly.
![Screenshot__53_](/uploads/bce4c1e304bb67931d59554be21031c6/Screenshot__53_.png)
![Screenshot__54_](/uploads/7e74e3c03d2fe4013b702a0e05b44cee/Screenshot__54_.png)
I reached out to Crossref technical support, and they told me to reach out to technical support for Aperture Neuro, because I don't think this is something they can resolve on their end.
Thanks!
Beau.https://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1185Deleted users can still access the Review page2024-03-14T04:28:37ZRyan Dix-PeekDeleted users can still access the Review pagehttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1551[Sciety Preprints] Hide published articles from web crawlers2024-03-13T05:52:46ZRyan Dix-Peek[Sciety Preprints] Hide published articles from web crawlersDisallow all paths, and update robot.txt file accordingly. Linked MR; https://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/merge_requests/1158Disallow all paths, and update robot.txt file accordingly. Linked MR; https://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/merge_requests/1158Ben WhitmoreBen Whitmorehttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1487[BPSC] Import suggested manuscripts using Semantic Scholar2024-03-12T08:35:22ZRyan Dix-Peek[BPSC] Import suggested manuscripts using Semantic Scholar1. The solution should only be implemented on the `prc` archetype.
2. Move the enable/disable Semantic Scholar .env variable into the config manager. This should be a checkbox setting; Conguration>Workflow>Semantic Scholar>Import preprin...1. The solution should only be implemented on the `prc` archetype.
2. Move the enable/disable Semantic Scholar .env variable into the config manager. This should be a checkbox setting; Conguration>Workflow>Semantic Scholar>Import preprints using Semantic Scholar. Also move, 'Import manuscripts from Sematic Scholar no older than ‘x’ number of days' field to display if Semantic Scholar is enabled.
1. Add config field allowing Group Managers to (multi) select servers from a list; https://www.semanticscholar.org/about/publishersBPSC Collaborative form field typePankaj KandpalPankaj Kandpalhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1473Refactor access to author-proofing feedback2024-03-11T11:28:13ZRyan Dix-PeekRefactor access to author-proofing feedbackCurrently, the author-proofing workflow allows authors to capture feedback in the Production editor and view the submitted feedback (read-only) from the Feedback tab on the `/submit` page. The editor can access this feedback from the Fee...Currently, the author-proofing workflow allows authors to capture feedback in the Production editor and view the submitted feedback (read-only) from the Feedback tab on the `/submit` page. The editor can access this feedback from the Feedback tab on the `/decision` page.
The purpose of this task is to;
1. Deprecate the use of the 'Feedback' tab on the `/submit` and `/decision` pages.
1. To create new action links for the author and editor to access the author-proofing feedback from the Production editor.
2. Replace link icon with text on the `/dashboard/submissions` page. And add a text link on the `dashboard/edits` page.
3. Add the version to the submitted state recorded in the Production Editor>Feedback tab.
4. If multiple rounds of author proofing have been completed, author feedback should be ordered from most recent at the top to oldest at the bottom.
**Acceptance criteria;**
- [ ] Author should be able to access the Production editor using the text link; 'Provide production feedback' when in an 'author proofing assigned'/'author proofing in progress' state. An author should be able to access the Production editor using the text link; 'View production feedback' when in an 'author proofing in completed' state.
- [ ] Authors are able to click on the edit icon link from the `/dashboard/submissions` page to access the author-proofing form in an edit/read-only) state. The link text should be displayed when the initial round of review is instigated, and persist thereafter.
- [ ] Editors are able to click on the 'Production' link from the `dashboard/edits` page to access the author-proofing form in a read-only state.
- [ ] Author/editor should see the following record on the Production editor>Feedback tab; Last edited e.g. 'Edited '[insert `meta.title`]' version [insert version number] on 2023-09-25 15:11' and submitted e.g. 'Ryan Dix submitted feedback for '[insert `meta.title`]' version [insert version number] on 2023-09-25 15:11'.
- [ ] Editors can only ever access the Production editor>Editor or Production editor>Feedback in a read-only state.v3.1.0Vignesh DevendranVignesh Devendranhttps://gitlab.coko.foundation/kotahi/kotahi/-/issues/1492Add config setting to enable/disable author-proofing workflow2024-03-11T07:25:10ZRyan Dix-PeekAdd config setting to enable/disable author-proofing workflowThe purpose of this task is to add a configuration setting to enable the Author proofing workflow control from appearing on the Dashboard>My submission page, Control>Team and in the Production editor.
**Acceptance criteria;**
- [ ] Add ...The purpose of this task is to add a configuration setting to enable the Author proofing workflow control from appearing on the Dashboard>My submission page, Control>Team and in the Production editor.
**Acceptance criteria;**
- [ ] Add the checkbox setting to the Configuration>Workflow>Control>'Allow authors to participate in proofreading rounds'.
- [ ] The configuration setting should be enabled as a default for the `journal` archetype only.
![Screenshot_2024-01-25_at_07.51.49](/uploads/8792f02536c900c38d6875c9ecb82357/Screenshot_2024-01-25_at_07.51.49.png)Amnet Author proofing workflowVignesh DevendranVignesh Devendran