|
|
| Line 39: |
Line 39: |
| == The Magazine == | | == The Magazine == |
|
| |
|
| *Consists of Content | | *Consists of Articles written by the community |
| *Content is Editorial (with help from Internal Authors) or from Peer Reviewed Authors | | *Content is Editorial (Minor input) or from Peer Reviewed Authors/Artists/Designers |
| *Content has different forms [Paul: What are the differences?] | | *Content is text, video, audio, art and photo |
|
| |
|
| *Different roles can be identified:<br> | | *Different roles can be identified:<br> |
|
| |
|
| #Administrators {they take care of the site} | | #Administrators {they take care site related issues, such as maintenance} |
| #Moderators {they moderate comments/subscribers} | | #Moderators {they moderate comments/subscribers/blogs} '''(a)''' |
| #Editors {they take care of how Content is displayed} '''(a)'''<br> | | #Editors {they take care of how Content is displayed, this includes layout of the magazine, different blocks, updates of the "look" over time etc...} '''(b)'''<br> |
| #Authors {they submit Content} '''(b)'''<br> | | #Authors {they submit Content} '''(c)'''<br> |
| #Subscribers {registered users with something to say (comments)}'''(c)''' | | #Subscribers {registered users with something to say (comments)}'''(d)''' |
|
| |
|
| Roles a+b+c can be combined. <br>
| | Combinations of roles a, b, c, and d are possible. <br> |
|
| |
|
| *There is input and output: | | *There is input and output: |
| Line 59: |
Line 59: |
| #- Content submitted by Authors (also in an editorial role) | | #- Content submitted by Authors (also in an editorial role) |
| #- Automated list of newly submitted titles ("the buzz") | | #- Automated list of newly submitted titles ("the buzz") |
| #- Automated list of Mozilla related news
| | #- Automated list of top 10 lists (most commented article) |
| #- Automated list of top 10 lists (highest rated by votes; most read; linked to) | | #- Blog network of Subscribers |
| #- Automated list of comments to comments (optional and are comments to microblogged comments welcome?) | | #- Automated list of top 10 lists (most commented blog) |
|
| |
|
| output: <br> | | output: <br> |
|
| |
|
| #- Frontpage (per Issue); table of content | | #- Frontpage (one before, one after log-in), overview of latest articles, most commented articles, featured article,other? |
| #- Articles (Editorial and per subsection Peer Reviewed) as HTML and as downloadable PDFs | | #- Articles (Editorial and per subsection Peer Reviewed) as drupal nodes (and as downloadable PDFs??) |
| #- Comments (also Disqus module and microblogged (if user chooses so) | | #- Comments (also Disqus module and microblogged (if user chooses so) |
| #- Submitted as a whole to Magcloud (example)
| | #- DOI number to research articles |
| #- DOI number | |
| #- Abstracts to external publisher?<br> | | #- Abstracts to external publisher?<br> |
|
| |
|
| === Editorial Sections === | | === Editorial Sections === |
|
| |
|
| */In this Issue / | | */Featured / |
| */News and Views / | | */News and Views / |
| */Opinion and Comment (correspondence; Commentary; Book Reviews) / | | */Opinion and Comment (correspondence; Commentary; Book Reviews) / |
| */Feature / | | */Jobs/Adds? |
| */Jobs/Adds? 7 | | */[[Image:MM_Collages2.png|200x105px]]/<br> |
|
| |
|
| Well these topics may be discussed, but a better Editorial input will be:
| | *A quarterly Editorial Collage with a theme picked from the articles. The collage will consist of Editorial Content and summaries of peer-reviewed Articles submitted in the past which fit this theme. |
| | |
| [[Image:MM_Collages2.png|200x105px]]<br>
| |
| | |
| *A bimonthly Editorial Collage with a themes picked from the Mozilla Landscape. The collage will consist of Editorial Content and summaries of peer-reviewed Articles submitted in the past which fit this theme. | |
| *The Collage will have an 'In this Collage' Page | | *The Collage will have an 'In this Collage' Page |
| *The Collage will have 'Views and Commentary' | | *The Collage will have 'Views and Commentary' |
| *Each Collage will have its own flavor, but will be published every two months and also uploaded to Magcloud. | | *Each Collage will have its own flavor, but will be published 4 times a year and also uploaded to Magcloud. |
|
| |
|
| <br> | | <br> |
| Line 93: |
Line 88: |
| === Peer Review Sections === | | === Peer Review Sections === |
|
| |
|
| *'''Social Impact''': <u>Social impact.</u> The Internet is a social integral part of modern daily life. The authors may comment on (review), or show in original work (research), these aspects in relation to education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
| | The magazine consists of the following topics: |
|
| |
|
| *'''My Interne'''t: <u>Personalization and New Tools</u>. The Internet is used by individuals. Fundamental rights such as privacy, security, personalization of Internet tools, transparency, and data traffic are topics to be discussed from an original (research) standpoint. New software tools may also fit this scope.
| | '''Social impact''' |
| | The Internet is a social integral part of modern daily life. The authors may comment on (in a review), or show in original work (in a research article), these aspects in relation to education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole. |
| | ''' |
| | Own Web and New Tools''' |
| | The Internet is used by individuals. Fundamental rights such as privacy, security, personalization of Internet tools, transparency, and legal ownership of data(traffic) are topics to be discussed from an original (research) standpoint. New software tools may also fit this scope. |
|
| |
|
| *'''Review Mozilla''' <u>Reviews of available Mozilla Tools</u>. Critical reviews of tools made available by members in the Mozilla landscape, especially in relation to other compatible tools will give valuable feedback in relation to Mozilla’s mission statement(s).
| | '''Reviews of Open Web Tools''' |
| | Critical review of Open Web tools, especially in relation to other compatible tools will give valuable feedback in relation to openness, innovation and opportunity on the web. |
|
| |
|
| *'''Synonyms''': <u>Commercial involvement</u>. Companies are hereby invited to give their view, research and involvement in the development of the Internet. The authors may not have to agree with the Mozilla Manifesto, a healthy dialogue between different approaches may give new insights in the metrics of the Internet.
| | '''Commercial involvement''' |
| | Companies are hereby invited to give their view, research and involvement in the development of the Internet. Companies may develop Open Internet Tools or Closed Applications. The authors may not have to agree with the mission of Openness on the Internet, a healthy dialogue between different approaches will give new insights in the metrics of the Internet. |
|
| |
|
| *'''Mixed Short''': <u>Shorts</u>. No not the pants! We mean very short original opinions which fit into the mission statement of the magazine in the form of a 1-2 frame comic, original artwork, letters, photo’s (with caption), videos/cartoon (max. 10 sec, for Internet publishing only), or code (keep it short and simple).<br>
| | '''Brief |
| | '''Short original opinions which fit into the mission statement of the magazine in the form of a 1-2 frame comic, original artwork, letters, photo’s (with caption), videos/cartoon (max. 10 sec, for Internet publishing only), or code (keep it short and simple). |
|
| |
|
| These items need a more "hip" name for the magazine (y/n)
| |
|
| |
|
| === Processes === | | === Processes === |
|
| |
|
| *Content Life Time: <br> | | *Content Life Time: <br> |
| *[[Image:Content publishing process.png|800x487px]]
| | [[Image:Content publishing process.png|800x487px]]<br> |
| *Author Content Upload:<br>[[Image:Author content upload.png|800x65px]]<br>
| | [[Image:Author content upload.png|800x65px]]<br> |
| | |
| Update [27 Oct 2009]: In Mozillamagazine 5 Content types are allowed with their own "upload" page. Although the process as described is valid, all information is filled in 1 single form as to mimic the flow from left to right. If all Fields in a form are filled, and the Article is uploaded, the information of the peer-reviewer will go to the Editor(s) who will inform the peer-reviewers.
| |
|
| |
|
| Update [08 Dec 2009]: In regards to the work-flow module and the underlying processes, the work flow has to be simplified. The following process is thus drawn:
| | In regards to the work-flow module and the underlying processes, the work flow of OpenPublish will be used to start with. |
|
| |
|
| [[Image:workflow.png|800x430px]]<br> | | [[Image:workflow.png|800x430px]]<br> |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| //What a form should contain according to the flow diagram above. | | //What a form should contain according to the flow diagram above. |
|
| |
|
| #<u>Creating content</u>When an Authors creates an Article he/she is asked to fill the form which always consists of the 4 blocks presented in the Work flow figure shown above. | | #<u>Creating content</u>When an Authors creates an Article he/she is asked to fill a downloadable form and needs to be filled and submitted to the Editors. |
| | |
| Each section is organic and mandatory fields are filled.
| |
| | |
|
| |
|
| *Peer Reviewing:<br> | | *Peer Reviewing:<br> |
|
| |
|
| <b>This section needs to be revised after the workflow is created! [Dec2009]</b>
| | #A peer reviewer user should be created in the OpenPublish format or individual nodes get a special access for the reviewers<br> |
| | | #Comments to the article should be done in drupal, but not published later when the article is published (if the reviewer wishes so). |
| // old data:
| |
| | |
| #<u>Checklist:</u> In this page the Reviewer is asked if the Reviewer checked the following aspects (a more clarified explenation will be given per item):<br>- Is this really you?<br>- Have you read the detailed instructions for Reviewers?<br>- Do you agree with the conditions of Reviewing and the Mozillamagazine copyright and licence agreement?<br>
| |
| #Here the Reviewer will see the <u>Manuscipt details</u> as submitted by the Author and can download the file(s) as submitted:<br>- The Reviewer is asked if he/she is willing to review the article.<br>- The Reviewer is asked if he/she has (to his/her knowledge) the expertise (yes/partially/no) to review this article.<br>- If less then 3 Reviewers remain the Author and the Editor(s) are notified, the Author has then to re-enter additional Reviewers.<br> | |
| #The <u>contact details</u> of the Reviewer are entered. Returning Reviewers can log-in; new users will fill out a form. A registered Reviewers gets automatically a log-in as subscriber or adds the role as Author to its Subscriber's role. Reviewers can choose here (or later in their profile) to be anonymous (not the default).<br>
| |
| #The Reviewer is asked to make a <u>dicision</u> within 14 days:<br>a) to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal;<br>b) to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways;<br>c) to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission; <br>d) to reject it outright.<br>- The Reviewer will add a justification for the decision.<br>- If the Decision is (a) for all 3-5 Reviewers the Manuscript is opened for the Editor(s) for editing to final publication.<br>
| |
| #The Reviewers fills its <u>comments </u>in a field, which after submitting, are emailed to all Author(s).<br>
| |
| #The Author(s) opens the <u>notification</u> page, after subsequent long-in/registration, and selects the comments from the (anonymous) Reviewer. Comments can be printed.<br>
| |
| #The Author re-submits the <u>corrections</u> (revised manuscript in full) within 30 days.<br>
| |
| #The Reviewers who had comments are notified via email and is asked to make a <u>dicision </u>within 7 days:<br>a) to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal;<br>b) to reject it outright.<br>- No justification is needed.<br>- If the decision is (a) all Reviewers the Manuscript is opened for the Editor(s) for editing to final publication.<br>- If the decision is (b) for any Reviewers the Author is notified by the Editor(s) via email and the manuscript is deleted from the database.
| |
| | |
| // close old data! [DEC2009]
| |
|
| |
|
| *Editing and Publishing:<br> | | *Editing and Publishing:<br> |
|
| |
|
| #Checklist: In this page the Edor is asked if the Editor checked the following aspects (a more clarified explanation will be given per item):<br>- Is this really you?<br>- Are the Reviewers not of the same affiliation as the Author(s)<br>- Is the Manuscript missing anything (Review information, Figures, Supplementary material, etc...)?<br>- Is the Manuscript rejected? If so: see Rejected Manuscripts Process.<br> | | #Checklist: The Editor has to check the following aspects (a more clarified explanation will be given per item):<br>- Is this really you?<br>- Are the Reviewers not of the same affiliation as the Author(s)<br>- Is the Manuscript missing anything (Review information, Figures, Supplementary material, etc...)?<br>- Is the Manuscript rejected? If so: see Rejected Manuscripts Process.<br> |
| #Here the Editor will see the Create (by using ???) a PDF (Printing Proof) details to be emailed to main Author and can download the file(s) as submitted. | | #The Author should be able to see a Printing Proof page.<br> |
| #The Author opens the Printing Proof page, after subsequent long-in/registration, and downloads the PDF file. <br>
| | #The Author re-submits the corrections, if needed, (revised manuscript in full) within 7 days. Can drupal track changes? |
| #The Author re-submits the corrections, if needed, (revised manuscript in full) within 7 days. | | #Editor will publish the article to the site<br> |
| #(a) Here the Editor will see the Create (by using ???) a PDF (Final version) details to be emailed to main Author and can download the file(s) as submitted<br>(b) Here the Editor (either himself or other Editor(s)) create the HTML (node) file using the final text.<br> | | #The full version is viewable for the subscribers and readers.<br> |
| #(a) The PDF is uploaded to the Magazine to be downloaded, eventual other publishing actions are done as well (e.g. Magcloud)<br>(b) Related material (e.g. external links, doinumber, social media etc...) is submitted.<br>
| |
| #The full version is viewable for the subscribers and readers. We can work with periodical Issues (example Nature Biotechnology) or feed of Articles (example PloS One).<br> | |
| #Either every Issue or every Month articles get archived.<br>
| |
|
| |
|
| <br> | | <br> |