Issue Number | 55 |
---|---|
Summary | Search the database |
Created | 2013-09-17 13:54:44 |
Issue Type | Improvement |
Submitted By | trivedim |
Assigned To | |
Status | Closed |
Resolved | 2015-12-15 12:01:48 |
Resolution | Duplicate |
Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.113367 |
TIR #2403 entered 2013-02-27 by Minaxi Trivedi (Future Release status)
3. Search the Database Unpublished Citations option: currently the
search the database administrator search includes options to check
“Include unpublished”, “Include NOT Listed”, and “Include Rejected”. The
“Include Unpublished” seems to be working. It retrieves all citations
that are either awaiting med lib review, Not listed or rejected in
addition to what has been published. “Include NOT Listed” and “Include
Rejected” are not working…both are retrieving very odd results. “Include
Unpublished” by definition already includes NOT Listed, Rejected and
citations awaiting med lib review, it is redundant to check “Include NOT
Listed” or “Include Rejected” unless “Include Unpublished” is being
narrowed when either of these items are checked. So this needs to be
changed to “NOT Listed Only” and “Rejected Only”. When “NOT Listed Only”
is checked only citations that have been kicked out because they were
NOT Listed by any board (or a specific board if one of the search
variables) should be retrieved. When “Rejected Only” is checked only
citations that have been rejected during med lib review for any one
topic (or a specific topic if this is one of the search variables)
should be retrieved. And if users want to see unpublished only that too
should be an option.
When discussing the logic for these checkboxes there must have been a
misunderstanding. Minaxi and I were thinking in terms of limiting
retrieval with these variables and Bob was thinking in terms of only
expanding retrieval…when we need both.
Deckelman, Laura (NIH/NCI) [C]No presence information (3/11/2013 8:44 AM): Minaxi, I'm moving this TIR to a future release (backlog). I will reach out to you and Cynthia for the reasons why.
Trivedi, Minaxi (NON NIH) [C]No presence information (3/7/2013 10:42
AM):
Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C]No presence information (3/5/2013 1:12
PM):
Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C]No presence information (3/1/2013 5:06
PM):
Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C]No presence information (2/27/2013 2:46 PM): I
don't think I was the only one with the understanding that the upstream
options had the effect of expanding, not narrowing the search. On
January 15 I wrote (in the Bugzilla issue):
"I think this makes sense. If you don't check any boxes, you only get
articles that have the "published" state (for the topic or board
specified if one has been selected, and filtered by the other criteria
specified on the search request form): let's call this the "base set
(B)." If you check INCLUDE REJECTED ARTICLES you get the base set plus
articles that have the "Rejected in initial review" state (again, for
the topic or board specified if one has been selected); so, base set (B)
+ rejected (R). If you check INCLUDE ARTICLES EXLUDED BY NOT LIST
JOURNALS you get the base set plus articles excluded by the NOT list
(again, that's the NOT list for the board you specified if you did
select a board): base (B) + excluded (E). If you check both of these two
boxes you'll get B + R + E. If you check INCLUDE UNPUBLISED ARTICLES
you'll get B + R + E as well as articles which are in the "Ready for
initial review" state (for a topic or board if appropriate), whether or
not the other two boxes are checked.
Does that sound right?"
Two days later Cynthia replied:
"Yes, this looks correct."
Trivedi, Minaxi (NON NIH) [C]No presence information (2/27/2013 2:25 PM):
Robin:
Are we still considering revisiting the original decision for this behavior (see comments above)?
Thanks.
Hi Bob,
I think we will keep these options since they are helpful to the Board managers, but we need to add more options and/or a new report since Cynthia and Minaxi currently do not have a way to identify the number of citations that have been rejected during a specific review cycle by Board (as well as a grand total for all Boards) or the number of citations that have been not listed during a specific review cycle by Board (as well as a grand total for all Boards).
We will discuss this and we will likely submit a separate ticket for those enhancements. Thanks.
Can we close this ticket? We have since implemented additional buttons for restricting the search to articles which were not listed or rejected, as this change request specified. If we decide we'll do additional reports, we should create new tickets for them.
Yes, we can close this. I believe the requested report changes are covered in OCEEBMS-204 and OCEEBMS-253.
Marking as a duplicate since we have entered separate tickets for each of these enhancements.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000365