MERLOT Review Workflow Overview

Home

All Reviewers

Members

Editors

Tools

Scenario

"Jumping Gluons" is added to MERLOT and categorized within Physics, under Particle Physics. This item shows up on the co-editor's Discipline Overview Page (in their Workspace) with the “None (not Triaged)” status designation by increasing that number.  An editor clicking on the “None” link will access the list that includes this item.

John W, as part of his assignment to monitor items in Particle Physics, looks for items without a triage using the Workflow Search Tool and finds “Jumping Gluons”. He looks at the site and thinks it is worth reviewing. John goes to the Detail Record of the item, clicks on "Item Workspace" on the menu bar, and clicks on "Add New Triage". He then adds a triage value of "High Priority Review (4)" and a short explanatory comment.  He also indicates on the triage form his interest in reviewing the item.

Chuck B, co-editor for Physics, finds a new item with "Waiting for Review" status in the Physics Discipline Overview.  Checking the list, he finds a “high priority review” triage for “Jumping Gluons”. Going to the item’s Workflow Overview Page, he sees that the author has not yet been contacted by MERLOT. An Author Notification letter is waiting for him to edit and send. This letter states that the MERLOT Physics group wants to review her material and asks for a response if the author doesn't want her material reviewed. It also asks for permission to review any of the authors’ material. Chuck clicks on "Edit Author Notification Letter", makes sure that the letter says what he wants it to, and sends it off.

In this case, the author does not respond to the notification letter, so the system, after two weeks, updates the “Jumping Gluons” status to cleared for review. The Review Status Value that the material has been given is "Approval to Review Item (No Response)" and is noted on the item’s Workflow Overview Page. If the author had responded, that would have been recorded by the co-leader in the status drop down box on this page.

“Jumping Gluons” is ready to be reviewed and needs reviewers assigned.  John W decides to be one reviewer, goes to the item’s Workflow Overview page and assigns himself using the “Review” button.  John then asks Chuck B to select a second reviewer for the item. Chuck knows that both Bob T and Bill M have experience in particle physics and have finished their latest review. Chuck goes to his Workspace, clicks on "Manage Reviewers", and checks the statistics for both Bob and Bill to see where they are on their quarterly goals. Bill has completed 23 reviews in the past 60 days, while Bob has only finished 11. Chuck returns to the item’s Workspace Overview page, selects Bill's name from the text field, and assigns him to review the material.

(Alternatively, there is another Physics faculty member, Jill W who wishes to participate in peer review and has been trained by the group.  To add her as a reviewer, Chuck goes to Manage Reviewers”, types her name in the “Add New Reviewer” text box, and performs a search. Looking at the resulting list, Chuck finds Jill and sets the radio button by her name. He gives her “External Reviewer” status and clicks the submit button. Chuck then returns to the item’s Workspace Overview page and selects Jill as the second reviewer.)

In checking his Workspace page, Bill M sees he is assigned to write an individual review for “Jumping Gluons” with John W. He goes to the item’s Workflow Overview page and clicks on “Begin New Individual Review” to bring up the review form.  He then goes to the “Jumping Gluons” site and studies it, noting pluses and minuses in the three review criteria areas. Bill fills in his thoughts on the review form and, when finished with his initial review, selects “Save for Later" at the bottom of the form. Two days later he returns to the item’s Workflow Page, selects “Edit Individual Review”, checks his comments, cleans up his spelling and grammar, completes the assignment, and clicks "Submit Final Copy". By doing this, Bill has indicates that his individual review is complete and is available for the Physics Board to read.

Meanwhile, John W has also completed his “Jumping Gluons” review.  He uses a Microsoft Word template of the physics review form to write his review.  Once completed, he goes to the item’s Workflow Overview page, brings up the review form using the “Begin New Individual Review” link, and cuts and pastes his review from the word document to the text boxes on the review form.  Once completed, he submits his review as the final copy.

Bill M and John W decide that John will write the composite review for “Jumping Gluons”.  John goes to the item’s Workflow Overview page, looks at the two reviews linked under “Completed Reviews”, and clicks on “Begin New Composite Review”.  John then selects Bill's individual review as the base document to edit and clicks “Begin Review” to access the composite review form.  This form has the text from both individual reviews above the text input box for each review field. Since he chose Bill's review as the base document, these fields initially include Bill's text for editing. John goes through the form, cutting and pasting some of his review into the fields and editing the reviews to fit together. After John is satisfied with his composite, he clicks “Save for Later” and notifies Bill that he is finished.  Bill goes to the item’s Workflow Overview page, selects the “Edit Composite Review” link, makes a few modifications, and selects “Submit Final Copy”.  The composite review is now ready to send to the author for comment.

In his Workspace, Chuck B sees that a new item has the status “Composite Review Completed”.  From the list of such items, he sees the review for “Jumping Gluons” is finished, clicks on the link to the item's Workspace Overview, and looks at the completed composite review.  Satisfied with the review, Chuck clicks on "Edit Review Letter" to send the review to the author. A default template letter is ready to edit and send with the review pasted into the letter below the template. Chuck “Sends” the letter so that the author can read and respond to the completed review.

After receiving an email expressing warm regards for the review with some comments on research about the use of “Jumping Gluons” from the author, Chuck updates the "Response to Review" value to "Approved for Posting".

Chuck B goes to the “Jumping Gluon” Workflow Overview page, selects “Edit the Composite Review”, types the author’s comments at the bottom of the review form, and “Posts” the composite to MERLOT.  It is now a public review attributed to the Physics review panel.

After posting the review of “Jumping Gluons”, Chuck B sends the author another email stating that letters of recognition can be sent to her and two others that she designates, again through a link on the item’s Workflow Overview page. In this case, the author requests a letter for herself and her Dean and provides the addresses to send these letters.  Chuck inputs these addresses into the fields on the item's Workflow Overview page to keep track of to whom and where the letters are to be sent. After the letters are sent, Chuck checks off that the letters have been sent to the author and her designee.

In addition, Chuck checks the box on the bottom right of the material's Workflow Overview page and clicks the add/change button. The material has now officially completed the peer review process.