Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement a system to formalise curation checking by nominated individuals #56

Open
CuzickA opened this issue Dec 4, 2019 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@CuzickA
Copy link

CuzickA commented Dec 4, 2019

pombase/canto#2120

@CuzickA
Copy link
Author

CuzickA commented Dec 1, 2021

Is this something that we are still planning on doing?
@jseager7 how difficult is this to set up? I think we also discussed the possibility of the Journal article reviewers checking curation sessions.

@jseager7
Copy link

jseager7 commented Dec 1, 2021

I think this is a good idea, but doing this inside of PHI-Canto will probably be hard, plus I have no idea where to start with the code to enable this. I'm not entirely clear on the requirements either.

It's likely to be faster if we start by handling this nomination semi-manually, through some kind of policy or a set of guidelines: for example, a policy that pairs up curators in one lab with those in another lab in a sort of self-initiated peer review process. That way if nobody buys in to the idea then we won't have wasted much time (compared to implementing the feature in software).

My idea is that after one community curator is done with curation, they would use PHI-Canto to reassign the session to their designated curation reviewer. They'd choose the reviewer based on some external policy that we might have helped draft. That initial reassignment could be a single point of contact in the other lab, who then delegates out to the most appropriate individual. Alternatively, the reviewer could be a named person nominated by the journal review process.

We should be able to track these reassignments because the emails should all go through the curation inbox. That way, if we notice that the curator has forgotten to nominate a reviewer, we could remind them, or select a reviewer ourselves. If the review gets stuck with the reviewers, we'll know who to contact to try to get things moving (either by checking the session in Canto or checking the reassignment email).

Once we have another part-time admin curator, they could be a fallback point of contact for review if the community curator doesn't have anyone linked to their lab or organisation.

@CuzickA CuzickA added the Future label Dec 1, 2021
@CuzickA
Copy link
Author

CuzickA commented Dec 1, 2021

Okay thanks @jseager7
I've added a 'future' label.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants