| Issue Number | 164 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Literature] Board Member Visibility of Papers, Reviews for Papers Not Assigned to Review |
| Created | 2014-02-03 11:20:06 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2014-07-11 09:58:46 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.117980 |
This needs a lot more discussion before a solution is implemented, but I wanted to add an issue to capture a possible enhancement for the next release.
For the Genetics Board, I split up the papers for a few of the topics that generate a lot of literature so that I'm not asking everyone to review everything for that topic even though they are responsible for maintaining that particular summary. (I think the Adult Tx Board does this for at least one topic, too, and perhaps others do as well.)
What I'd like to do is to give the topic reviewers access to all of the papers (and each other's reviews) for that topic but make it clear which papers they are assigned to review. (Right now, I can only give them their assigned papers and I post a list of all of the papers in the forum.)
This would likely complicate the create packet page because we would need to select which Board members should be assigned to review each article rather than the full packet (we'd do that, too, for visibility), but we may be able to make the default be the way it is now (where everyone who sees the packets is assigned to review each paper) and have the option to expand something on the page to give the ability to articulate who should review each paper. Then, the Board members would either see the REVIEW button next to the article or not based on these assignments.
Again, these are just thoughts at this point, but we'll refine the requirements and post them here when we're ready.
We discussed this issue at today's status meeting.
In our discussion, we talked about ways to create a packet for multiple board members, some of whom are asked to review certain articles and some of whom are asked to review different articles.
Another possible approach is to keep things as they are in that all of those board members linked to a packet would be asked to review all of the articles in that packet, but provide a way for board members to see the articles that go into other packets not assigned to them.
I don't know if that second approach is easier or harder to implement or better or worse for board managers or board members. There are different ways to design and implement it that would affect those issues. It's just something to consider.
One big difference from a board member's point of view is that it could be implemented in a way that allowed the member to see articles that are not specifically part of a topic that he or she is registered to review.
Just wanted to close the loop on this. We'd like to proceed with the approach outlined in the first comment, specifically:
We'd like to give the topic reviewers access to all of the papers (and each other's reviews) for that topic but make it clear which papers they are assigned to review.
On the create packet page, we will need to select which Board members should be assigned to review each article rather than the full packet (we'd do that, too, for visibility), but we would like to make the default be the way it is now (where everyone who sees the packets is assigned to review each paper) and have the option to expand something on the page to give the ability to articulate who should review each paper. Then, the Board members would either see the REVIEW button next to the article or not based on these assignments.
Have you had a chance to think about the options and discuss them with your colleagues? I'll capture them briefly here (there were two that we discussed):
Modify the form for creating a new packet (or modifying an existing packet) so that the list of reviewer checkboxes is repeated for each article. Have the software make it clear to the packets' reviewers which articles each of them is responsible for reviewing.
Have the board manager create separate packets for each pairing of a set of reviewers with a set of articles, and have the software use the topic assignments for each board member expand the packets (s)he sees to include all of those created for his/her topics, include those packets for which (s)he is not responsible for reviewing the articles. We'll need to know more details about where this second group of packets will be shown.
Hi Bob,
Victoria and I discussed this issue today and we're tempted by option #2, because it may have an added benefit of being a way for us to send FYI articles to our Board members provided it would be possible to post a packet with NO selected reviewers. Victoria is going to discuss this with the other Board managers next week (I will be out) and she'll post the decision here. Thank you!
I just met with Sharon and Val and they agreed that option #2 seems like it would best fit our needs. We also like the possibility that it might provide a way for us to distribute FYI articles more easily.
Here's a summary of my understanding of what we're going to do.
The software will be modified in two ways:
Allow board managers to create packets to which no reviewers have been assigned.
Provide a way for a board member who is associated with the topic for a packet to see that packet, even if (s)he is not assigned as a reviewer for the packet.
The users are still thinking about the details of how to separate out the different packets for a board member (those assigned to the member for review versus those not assigned to the board member for review, but for which the board member is associated with the packet's topic).
Sound right to you, Victoria?
Yes, that sounds just right. Robin and I will talk next week about ideas for separating/displaying/accessing the packets that are "view only." Thanks!
You can now create packets on DEV without assigning any reviewers to it. I've gone ahead and implemented an approach to showing board members their FYI packets. I can try to do something different if that's necessary, but Friday's our deadline for turning over this release for testing, and I didn't want to be caught with this task incomplete. I created a couple of new pages for the board members, one listing their FYI packets, and the other showing one of those packets. Looks a lot like the "Completed Packets" pages, but there's no button for the board member to post documents to the packet, and the string " [FYI]" is added to the packet's title on the page for an individual packet.
To look at this solution, log on to https://ebms-dev.nci.nih.gov as Test Board Member and select "FYI Packets" from the Literature menu.
Robin and Victoria said in yesterday's meeting that the approach I adopted is acceptable.
Verified on QA. Thanks!!
Verified on prod.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000650