-OR- log into the manuscript tracking system

What's New for JBO 4.4
Scheduled Release Date: (3/7/2011)

Archive: JBO Changes by Release

Release 4.4 Items

1.  Auto-save for (a) the review submission screen, (b) the action letter draft screen, and (c) the “Send Misc Correspondence” function. Users will now have the system save their work while they type in any of these 3 functions. Text entered into the fields on the page (i.e., the narrative section of the review, the action letter text, and the misc correspondence letter text) will be saved automatically every 30 seconds, and will display a message (e.g., “Form auto-saved on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:56:27 AM”) without the user needing to click any buttons to save their work as they type. Despite the text being saved to the system, the review and action letter will not be considered “complete” until they are submitted by the user. Similarly, the misc correspondence will not go out until the user explicitly clicks “Send”.
2.  Reviewer Numbering: Reviewer numbering assignments will be saved across versions of the manuscript. For first versions, there will be no coding changes; however, for revisions, reviewers used again will retain their number from the original version. So for example, reviewer #2 for the original manuscript version will remain reviewer #2 for all subsequent versions, rather than having reviewer numbering begin again with the revision. Any additional reviewers added to review a revised manuscript will be given the next incrementing number available (e.g. if the original manuscript had 4 reviewers, a brand new reviewer added to referee the revision will be reviewer #5).
3.  Clarification of Manual Numbering of Reviewers: The function for manuscript coordinators (MCs) to modify assigned reviewer information (via manuscript detail page menu option "Reviewer Functions --> Modify Assigned Reviewer Info") has been revised to clarify when manual changing of reviewer order is permissible. Manual renumbering of reviewers is permitted only when a manuscript has passed status "Reviews Returned, Needs Action Letter", (i.e., manuscript is at status "Action Letter Drafted, Needs Editor Approval" or any subsequent status). Until that point, the coordinator function to update reviewer info will not display review order as an editable field, but will instead display reviewer order as a view-only number. Once an action letter draft has been written and saved to the system, reviewer order will become an editable field on this function.
4.  Changes to Make Resend of Review Requests Function Easier:
Manuscript coordinators (MCs) will have a new way to "resend" a previously sent review request: by going to the "Reviewer Assistance" link (a link that coordinators have access to up until the time a review is submitted). The Reviewer Assistance screen was previously used only to send a forgetful reviewer their submission link. However, now there is a new function on the Reviewer Assistance screen; a link just below the reviewer’s name that reads: "Resend Request Letter". When the MC clicks on this new link, s/he will be taken to a new request letter resend function, with the letter field populated with the text of the letter previously sent. NOTE: although the due date displayed in this function defaults to the due date given in the original letter, the due date field is editable. Also, on the Manuscript Detail page, as long as there is an active review request (i.e., a "Reviewer Assistance" link to click on), the following message will display: "To resend a review request to an assigned reviewer, click on the 'Reviewer Assistance' link."
5.  File Attachments to Miscellaneous Correspondence/Action Letter: Editorial offices may now upload files into the JBO that can then be appended to Miscellaneous Correspondence emails or the action letter. The intent of this addition to JBO is to give offices the ability to maintain a set of general documents that they may want to send out routinely, things like submission FAQs, instructions about forms, or perhaps general info for reviewers. Only the following document types will be permitted: .doc, .docx, .pdf, .rtf, .txt, .ppt. Each editorial office will have their own "folder" of files in JBO, and once uploaded into the system; these files will be displayed as a "pick list" of documents available to be attached to correspondence being sent from JBO. Main editors and manuscript coordinators can upload files into the system via homepage menu option "Other -->Ancillary File Maintenance". All JBO users will see the list of uploaded files, and be able to append any of these files to a piece of correspondence. NOTE: For referencing, when a file is appended to any correspondence, a record of this attachment will also be saved, and noted in the correspondence section of the manuscript record.
6. Reviewer Search: Allow for more results per page. On reviewer search results, we are adding an option to have 50 items be displayed at a time (previously the options were 10, 15, or 25). In addition, the “15” option will be removed, so the list will now be 10, 25, or 50 items displayed at a time.
7. Email addresses for all JBO users: This item is on the release list only to give an update on a discussion at the last Council of Editors meeting, where it was suggested that giving all users an “@apa.org” email address might help in some of the spam-filtering problems users have been experiencing with send of review requests and action letters. After some investigation, however, the technical team – in conference with other IT staff, determined that the change would have little or no upside, and would likely not do very much to help with spam filtering. For this reason, implementation of this idea was not approved at the last JBO development meeting. Instead, we are exploring other technologies and mail server configurations that will better enable us to catch email that bounces back and lessen the difficulties of spam filtering.
8. Due Date on Reviewer Reminder and Resent Request Letters – Potential Bug: Upon send of the reminder letter, JBO will ensure that the correct (i.e. any saved value) for due date is being used rather than auto-calculating a new (later) due date and putting that in the letter’s subject line. The due date to be used should always be the due date from the original request send; JBO will not revise the due date forward for resends of the request. As an example, for a request originally sent (on June 1st) with a due date of July 1st; if this request is resent on June 10th, the due date will remain July 1st (instead of being revised forward to a later due date like July 10th.)
When the manuscript coordinator resends a reviewer request letter, there have been a few reports that the due date in the subject line and the due date in the body letter text sometimes did not match. This is because the date in the letter body text is no longer a variable, but a saved value in the body of the letter text, saved as such when the letter was originally sent. When resending a review request, coordinators are advised to be alert to this possible lack of correspondence in due date between the letter’s subject line and the date value that may have been saved in the body of the letter. However, because JBO will not be changing the due date in the subject line for resends, this occurrence should be extremely rare, if it happens at all.
9. Display MS Title on Auto-messages to AE:
The automated message sent to AEs with the running count of reviewer information will include the manuscript title in the email as an aid to editors. The title will display just above the reviewer counts as in the sample below:


From: JBOAutomessenger@apa.org To: pmethods@nd.edu Cc: jjones@aol.com Sent: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 10:12 am Subject: Dr. Smithson has agreed to review 2010-0043 Manuscript Title: Moving Past the Idiographic vs. Nomothetic Divide: Towards the Reintegration of Case-by-Case Research Designs in Psychology Review information for manuscript 2010-0043 : Reviewers Requested: 4 Reviewers Accepted: 3 Reviewers Declined: 0 Reviews Returned: 1 Journal: Psychological Methods

10. Online Editor’s Handbook:
Main editors of APA journals will have access to an online version of the APA Editor’s Handbook in JBO – via homepage menu option “OTHER -->Editor’s Handbook”. Each chapter (and all appendices) will be accessible via links in the Table of Contents displayed. NOTE: The Editor’s Handbook for EPF journals is being edited by the Journals Dept, and will be made available when those edits are completed.
11. Minor text change on canned reviewer Request Letter edit screen:
The current screen to add or edit canned letter text for review requests includes language to explain how to use the “[DueDateX]” option – whereby due dates are a function converting X = some number of days into an actual due date to be displayed in the request letter. We are simply changing some language in the instructions to clarify what this “[DueDateX]” option denotes. Instead of displaying the example as:

Key: [DueDateX] - Requested date plus X days (available range 1-60) Examples:    [DueDate7] = Requested date plus 7 days    [DueDate30] = Requested date plus 30 days

We are changing the display to:


Key: [DueDateX] - Requested date plus X days (available range 1-60) Examples:    [DueDate7] = Date on which the original request was made plus 7 days    [DueDate30] = Date on which the original request was made plus 30 days

12. Email Validation checks throughout JBO:
We are adding email validation to every function where email interacts with JBO. The functions using email validation now are:

adding an author updating an author record adding a reviewer updating a reviewer's record from within editorial offices (and by the reviewer post-submission) adding an editorial office updating an editorial office's record the composition of miscellaneous correspondences the sending of review requests the sending of action letters

In addition to the validation, we have added a “CC” function to (1) the review request send and (2) the action letter send functions for coordinators, to give MCs a way to receive a copy of the letter and still keep validation in place for the “TO” field, where we require a single address in the “TO” line.
13. Addition of rich text editor (CKEditor) for review submission screens:
Reviewers now have a rich text editor into which they can submit their narrative comments. All formatting saved into this new text editor will be retained (i.e. spacing, bolding, italics, bullets, special characters, etc.).
14. CKEditor Toolbar Modifications:
The rich text editor toolbar has been simplified, with many unnecessary features removed. The toolbar has been revised to include only these functions: bold, italic, super- and sub-script, text color, the ability to create numeric or bulleted lists, cut and paste options, image insertion, special character map, and spell check.
15. JBO~PBO Transmittal form - Clarification of data required for successful transmittal (and corresponding display vs. nondisplay of submission button):
There was a discrepancy on the transmittal form: there must be a date saved for when the manuscript moves from status “Tentatively Accepted, Pending Forms” to status “Accepted, Forms In, Needs Send to PBO”. Through a glitch, the form was displaying without this piece of manuscript history (though the submit button did not appear, making it impossible to send the transmittal). The change employed here is to clarify the situation by not displaying the form at all, and instead displaying an explanatory message with regards to the need for this history in the manuscript record prior to sending a transmittal.
16. New link to Membership Join/Renew page:
Added to the manuscript receipt confirmation that presents to authors immediately following submission, we have added a link to the APA Membership join/renew page.
17. Four more action letter slots:
We have increased the number of action letter templates from 6 to 10. The existing first six templates correspond to a specific decision (i.e., “Accept As Is”, or “Reject Without External Review.”). However, there may be cases where more than one letter of a particular type is needed (e.g. a 2nd “Reject Without External Review” letter). Slots 7~10 will be for these extra letters. Further, letter slots 7~10 will have user-editable titles to help clarify their use.
18. Multiple Changes/additions related to the ‘NonResponder’ (NR) status for reviewers.
This series of development items are being implemented in light of users’ experiences with the ‘NonResponder’ (NR) status and functionality – experiences that helped us realize that more was needed to help users with this new status assignment for requested reviewers. As a little background, the NR status gives editorial offices a third way of assigning “pending response” review requests to a definitive “status” (the other two being the “Declined” designation, or the status of having returned a review); NR serves as a third option, and as a way to move the request off the stage when it has been too long and the reviewer has not yet replied. The NR designation essentially closes the review request as far as JBO is concerned: NR reviewers do not appear on the Overdue/Pending (O/P) Report, and they do not have tickler/reminder letters sent to them. The editorial office is able to keep their record of the request to review and can see this anytime in the ‘Reviewers’ section of the MS detail page, but the reviewer is displayed without a true reviewer number (instead the letters “NR” appear next to their name) along with the date they were marked as NR.
The NR status is a tool allowing offices to be proactive in obtaining reviewers by moving on from reviewers who do not respond to the request. The goal should be that no reviewer is marked as NR that the editorial office does not explicitly (i.e., manually) mark as such, regardless of the fact that there are automated features in place to set the NR status that have also been built into JBO (meant essentially as a fall-back option, a last resort). These automated features’ purpose is NOT to supplant the manual task, but to aid the office in cleaning up the reviewer assignments that for whatever reasons have been left unmanaged by the office. The automated features SHOULD NOT be thought of as the primary mover or setter of this NR designation.
There are 3 “methods” for setting NR status:

Primary: Manually – done by a JBO user, and done via the Overdue/Pending Report or via the new “Set Reviewer as Declined or NR” menu option (the latter option is available to manuscript coordinator users only).

Secondary: via Automatic trigger – the journal-level preference automation based on a user-selected number of days since the request was sent. After the selected number of days since the request was sent (options are 45, 60, or 75 days), JBO will automatically mark any as yet unresponsive reviewers to the status “NR”.

Tertiary: Automatic cleanup of reviewer requests once the action letter has been sent. Any requests left pending response (i.e., reviewer not marked already as ‘Declined’, ‘NR’, or hasn’t yet returned a review) JBO marks as NR. This is done to keep the manuscript/reviewer history file orderly more than anything else.
Changes related to ‘NR’ Reviewer status:


a) NEW: Added a new function to coordinator menu: on the manuscript detail page, menu option “Reviewer Functions --> Set Reviewer as Declined or NR”. Besides the obvious functionality from the menu option’s name, this new function will prompt system checks to determine whether the manuscript should be advanced to status “Reviews Returned, Needs Action Letter” (i.e., if all reviewers are marked agreed, declined, NR, or have returned their review). NR/Declined status can be set for any “pending response” reviewer who is assigned to the manuscript and has not yet returned a review (or a response). The only exceptions are co-reviewers, whose status will mirror that of the primary reviewer with whom they are associated. b) NEW: Added a new function to coordinator menu: on the manuscript detail page, menu option “Reviewer Functions --> Re-activate NR/Declined Status Review Request”. This function allows coordinators to back up a “closed” review request (i.e., a request where the reviewer is marked as declined or NR), re-opening that reviewer assignment, and thus making the reviewer available on the Overdue/Pending Report, from which they can again receive ticklers/reminders. This function also prompts system checks to determine if the manuscript status is correct, given the change in a reviewer’s status, and perhaps needs to be moved back from status “Reviews Returned, Needs Action Letter” to status “Review Requests Out, Awaiting Return of Reviews”. c) REVISION: Changes to “Remove Reviewer” function. This function is located on the coordinator’s manuscript detail page menu, under menu header “Reviewer Functions”. Changes made: Function “Remove Reviewer” renamed to “Remove Reviewer Assignment” Moved the setting of reviewer as NR or Declined to its own menu option and off this function’s screen. Added a confirmation checkbox to inform the coordinator that the manuscript’s status will be moved forward to “Reviews Returned, Needs Action Letter” if JBO determines that completing the Remove Reviewer Assignment function results in all assigned reviewers having a status of (a) returned a review, (b) declined, or (c) marked as NR. Coordinator can uncheck this box to prevent changing manuscript status if desired. Note that if the manuscript status does change, an optional auto-alert will be sent to the AE when the manuscript status is changed from "Review Requests Out, Awaiting Return of Reviews" to "Reviews Returned, Needs Action Letter". d) REVISION: The journal-level preference for how many days to wait until an automatic trigger marks a reviewer as NR has changed. The options used to be 21, 30, 45, or 60 days. But because this was deemed too short a time, the options were increased to 45, 60, or 75 days. This preference can be set – or turned off – via the Main Editor’s homepage menu option "Other --> Journal-Level Preferences". The recommended choice, if used at all, is 60 days. e) NEW: Added a new user preference for Associate/Main Editors (via the homepage menu option "Other --> Preferences" for AEs and "Other --> User-Level Preferences" for Main Editors. This preference reads: "Send me notifications of reviewers being set to non-responder regardless of whether the manuscript has changed status." If this preference is set to “yes”, the user will receive automatic notifications related to NR being assigned to reviewers (as outlined below). f) NEW: Added optional auto-alerts to be sent to AEs in the following scenarios: When JBO has marked reviewer(s) to status NR due to the automatic trigger, resulting in a change in the reviewer counts. This email will contain the name of all reviewers auto-marked as NR for this manuscript, and include summary review counts. If the manuscript’s status has changed as a result of marking reviewers as NR, the email will include a prompt to draft the action letter or to contact the coordinator to continue working with the current reviewers (i.e., rollback the NR status for some reviewers and rollback the manuscript’s status to “Review Requests Out, Awaiting Return of Reviews”. When a reviewer has been marked ‘NR’ manually by the coordinator, via the Overdue/Pending Report or via the new ‘Set Reviewer as Declined or NR’ function. When a coordinator reactivates a reviewer by removing the NR or Declined status via the new ‘Re-activate NR/Declined Status Review Request’ function. This alert will reflect recalculated count totals. g) NEW: Added a cleanup function. At the moment the coordinator sends the action letter to the author, JBO will set to status NR any reviewer for that manuscript who is still pending a response (has not agreed, declined, or returned a review),

---