Submission Integration: Proposed Consolidated Workflow

Summary of the new proposed workflow
The Dryad team is considering implementing some changes to the submission integration workflows to achieve a single standard workflow. Key points of this are:


 * enabling authors from all integrated journals to deposit data to Dryad before submitting a manuscript
 * allowing authors from all integrated journals to deposit without having a custom link from the journal
 * making optional the journal notice to Dryad of a manuscript in review
 * extending the benefits of the review workflow to all integrated journals
 * simplifying the integration process / easier for journals for understand

Proposed steps

 * Optional preliminary step: Journal notifies Dryad about a manuscript in review and invites the author to archive the underlying data files in Dryad, via a customized link.
 * Benefit: authors using the customized link won’t have to re-type information submitted to the journal.
 * Benefit: authors using the customized link may have more complete metadata (for instance, key words, abstracts - fields that are sometimes neglected, as they are not required to complete a submission).


 * 1) Author uploads data files to Dryad.
 * 2) *If no match on MS#, we need to display a note: We don't have any details about your article, so you will have to provide its description
 * 3) *change radio button In review to Prior to manuscript acceptance (?)
 * 4) *also need a radio button for "I don't have a MS#"
 * 5) Dryad sends immediate acknowledgement of data deposit w/ provisional DOI to author AND journal contacts ; sends reviewer passcode to journal contacts; also we state that we will not make this data public until we receive the final decision notice.
 * 6) *We will need to send these notices for every integrated journal, whether or not there has been a MS# match.
 * 7) *This is the first notice the journal gets w/ the Dryad DOI so it can be added to the article
 * 8) Journal contacts may access the data files using the passcode provided.
 * 9) At the conclusion of manuscript review, the journal notifies Dryad of accepted and rejected manuscripts. Should this be optional?
 * 10) *We would need to build the matching capability for this stage
 * 11) *Journals should send final decision notices for all accepted or rejected articles; they have no way to know which ones may have data in Dryad
 * 12) *there could payment consequences for journals that have a payment plan but don't want to pay for a data submission for whatever reason
 * 13) *if they don't send us a notice, spontaneously deposited data will sit in Review uncurated and the article could be published without the Dryad DOI; the journal has only received the immediate notice at the time of data deposit
 * 14) *Rejection notices are more valuable than acceptance; acceptance data can come from CrossRef
 * 15) Dryad matches the journal’s acceptance notice with the corresponding data files, OR curators use CrossRef checker to find published article; curators approve the data package and register the Digital Object Identifier (DOI); data files are hidden or made public per journal requirements.
 * 16) Journal and publisher add the Dryad DOI to all forms of the final article, enabling readers of the article to access the data.
 * 17) Dryad stores the data files, including spreadsheets, images, videos, audio recordings, and many other formats, and links to the article on the journal website.
 * 18) *Periodically we may need to contact both depositors & journals about data packages older than X? months for which we have not received an Acceptance notice.
 * 19) *Need periodic checker of submitted content to check on its status, send automated emails to author, possible automatic rejection after a timeout period

Changes that would be required for integrated journals

 * some journals might not want to allow authors to deposit data before article acceptance; to know their preferences we would need to check in with each one
 * journals will need to send us acceptance notices for ALL manuscripts they handle, because they have no way of knowing which ones may have associated data being held in Dryad; otherwise the data will be held in limbo and unavailable
 * journals currently using the basic/"on acceptance" workflow may need to change their workflow, because this essentially forces them to be aware of data submitted during the ms review process, and they will not have a system in place for handling the reviewer passcode or any communications from Dryad before acceptance
 * curator reports might need to go to different people
 * weekly reports for journals now using the Basic workflow will look a little different
 * some journals might need to revise their Instructions to Authors

Internal concerns about switching to one consolidated workflow
 Planned improvements to the review process would need to be in place before switching to a consolidated workflow.
 * One concern is that increased use of the review option as it's currently implemented will result in more duplicate submissions, and thus more journal and curator time spent sorting them out. authors are unsure of what they can and cannot do while their submissions are in review, and when things don't go as they expect, they often start over with a new submission.
 * Currently submissions are manually pushed out of review and into the queue for curation. This involves manually searching the acceptance notifications, matching them to items in review, and changing the workflow step. Before drastically increasing the number of review submissions, we need a way to automate the process of pushing items into the queue for curation.

Please [mailto:director@datadryad.org contact Dryad] to provide feedback about the proposed consolidated workflow.