On 5 Apr 2016, at 07:18, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au> wrote:

Hi Peter, Lilly, all

Yes the issue is live hence the need to announce the release officially (as suggested last week) before people start randomly linking to it

Alternatively Peter could take it down?

I have unpublished it as there are issues with formatting and footnotes in one article


@Peter: are you implementing the metadata on each article mod? Currently metadata js not at all availabe

the page with the metadata will be available here from the homepage and from here:
http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/?page_id=4970&preview=true 

I'll probably do the metadata mod on the editing-suite tomorrow morning and publish to production when tested (probably need to pay some attention to those articles that repeat abstract and keywords at the beginnin (as in issue 8)



cheers


Mathieu



From: jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org <jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Dr. Peter Troxler <trox@fabfolk.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:47
To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Revised article page, proposal
 
this is not exactly a message that we have been waiting for.

we understood earlier that the issue was ready to go live -- which happened in the meantime

so the only choice I have is to revert issue #8 to private and unpublish it--would have loved to know that a few weeks ago :(

so I suggest you'd rather speed up getting your editorial team together to finalise the issue and give us a final sign when you're ready

while doing that: could you please *remove* the title and abstracts from the article content as we'll be generating them automatically from metadata (still pondering about author-affiliation metadata)

/ Peter

On 4 Apr 2016, at 20:39, Nguyen, Lilly <lillyng@email.unc.edu> wrote:

Also just to be clear, I realize that there are still some minor changes that need to be added to this, so this issue should not be live just yet. For one article, the authors submitted a final version which I haven’t verified with the other editors is indeed the one that is published to the site. 

Lilly


On Apr 1, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <trox@fabfolk.com> wrote:

Lilly

On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:07, Nguyen, Lilly <lillyng@email.unc.edu> wrote:

Hi Peter---
On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <trox@fabfolk.com> wrote:

If so, where do the data for the absract and keywords live? Right now, we have those buried within the body of the journal article text, so if you implement this, we would have to go back and edit out all of the abstracts and keywords?

no editing needed if the metadata has been entered correctly (which has been done for most issues, for #3 and #6 some signals/signal numbers are missing)

could you verify this? i have no way of knowing and just want to make sure.

These are the "peer reviewed articles" pages per issue that show all the metadata that are entered:


you quickly see that the majority of issues are fine (including #8) -- except #3 and #6 where signal figure are missing



Thank you!

-lilly


_______________________________________________
JoPP-Public mailing list
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public



_______________________________________________
JoPP-Public mailing list
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public

_______________________________________________
JoPP-Public mailing list
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public





_______________________________________________
JoPP-Public mailing list
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public