EBMS Tickets

I need some clarification for this request. I assume the value "Editorial Board decision" for fast track placement refers to the state "Final board decision" and that the "dispositions associated" with that state would be what gets stored in the ebms_article_board_decision table (e.g., "Text needs to be revised"). For the "On agenda" state, however, it's not clear what dispositions would be associated with that state.

Victoria: I've added you as a watcher for this issue. I'll be calling to discuss parts that need clarification.

I spoke with Victoria this afternoon. She said we need the disposition dropdown for the "Final board decision" state, not the "On agenda" state. She said that for the "On agenda" state we instead need a dropdown list of all of the meetings (both past and present) for selecting the meeting to be linked to the state. She's going to do some digging to find out whether the frequency of use would justify the additional work (and clutter) required to automatically include checkboxes for all of the board members if the fast-track placement state is "Final board decision," and she will post what she finds here.

We also discussed whether a third comment field would be required for the "On agenda" state (presumably labeled something like "AGENDA COMMENT"), or whether it would be sufficient to use the FAST TRACK COMMENT for this purpose. Would a third comment field be needed for the "Final board decision" state?

I'll need to know whether the new meeting dropdown should really contain all meetings, or just those associated with the selected board.

For the "on agenda" value, we would need to have drop down lists of "future meetings" and "past meetings." There is a comment field that is currently associated with those options (you can see it if you look at the Full Citation page) but I'm not sure how important it is that this comment field be on the Import Citations page. We could always go to the Full Citation page later and add a comment.

For the "Editorial Board Decision" value, we would need the drop down list that is already associated with that value (again, available on the Full Citation page). There are some additional options for this one as well, but I'm also not sure if they would need to be added to the Import Citations page.

I don't know who the requestor was, and therefore, if the intent of the request was to give us more flexibility when we import citations or to skip having to go to the Full Citation page altogether.

What's the purpose of having separate drop down lists for future and past meetings?

There is a comment field that is currently associated with those options (you can see it if you look at the Full Citation page) but I'm not sure how important it is that this comment field be on the Import Citations page. We could always go to the Full Citation page later and add a comment.

Victoria:

I checked the code, and the software is already storing the value from the import page's FAST TRACK COMMENTS field in the same place that the comment is stored by the "Full Citation" page when you add a comment for the ON AGENDA or EDITORIAL BOARD DECISION states. So I think we can safely say that a third comment field on the import page would serve no purpose.

Great about not having to add another comment field!

I looked back at my notes from when Full Citation page was created to try to remember why we have separate drop down lists for future and past meetings. We originally had "Current Meetings" on the page. I'm sure we realized we needed to adjust that to include past meetings, but I don't know if it was just easier at that point to add a separate field or if we separated them so there would be fewer results to scroll through. Sorry, but I can't say just why we separated them.

Yesterday I wrote:

I'll need to know whether the new meeting dropdown should really contain all meetings, or just those associated with the selected board.

I have my answer for that question. I looked at the code for the full citation page, and found that the construction of the meeting picklists is not board-specific. That will make the code much simpler. I'm going to assume that the decision to have two separate picklists was deliberate, to prevent you from having to scroll through lots of past (or future, if the list is sorted in reverse order) meetings to get to the ones closest to the current date, and I'll go ahead and implement this with both lists. I will also follow the example of the full citation page, ensuring that values have not been selected from both lists.

So I think the only outstanding question for this issue is whether we need to add checkboxes for all the board members if the fast track placement state is Editorial Board decision.

We've decided that we do not need to add checkboxes for the Board members.

However, in looking at this on DEV, we noticed that the sequence in the placement level drop-down is out of order. Could the order be:

Passed abstract review
Passed full text review
On agenda
Editorial Board decision

Also, for the On agenda meetings lists, could the FUTURE MEETINGS drop-down be listed first followed by the PAST MEETINGS? This sequence will be consistent with these drop-downs on the full citation page.

Implemented on DEV; ready for user testing.

Verified on DEV.

Verified on Production.

Note for a future release:
The future and past meeting dropdowns are in the opposite sequencing chronologically from the same dropdown menus on the full citation page. We should make these consistent.