The guts of the argument.
Group opinion - The approved article sits as the main article and is clearly marked. The draft sits behind it and is clearly accessable via the subpage buttons. When one clicks on this one sees the generation 2 article (clearly marked). The draft article also has a countdown clock in the upper right corner counting down (we suggested maybe four weeks). Once the countdown reaches zero the draft is "locked" and becomes an "in press" article. Another timer is started on the "in press" page (Say 1 week). - a clear template across the top says something like "this article is in press. Please note that unless you are such and such a level editor you cannot make changes to this article - If you have substantive changes - please comment on this articles "in press" talk page. This draft page will will be replaced in (1 week or whatever the "in press" counter says at the time). At that time you may edit directly on this page's draft page." All at the same time an email reminder is sent out to the original author, major contributors and all editors in that section that such and such article is "in press". These people may view that article, and make comments in the discussion page - only editors of a certain status may actually make changes to an "in press" article. If no editor intervenes the "in press" is automatically published when the timer runs out and a new draft page appears with the clock counting down.
This is almost what happens now. In fact,
i just did the biology page. I placed my name into the To Approve section on the metadata template. I set a four day window for others to review. There were no comments and the
constable then approved it when the clock stopped. The approval information is then
stored on the approval subpage. Last minute edits will not be moved to the approved version since the url of the approved version is defined by the approving editor. It is the approving editors job to update the url as the four day window progresses.
One major difference is how the process is initiated. Currently it is initated by an editor. One potential problem for an automated process is that we will get overwhelmed and there will not be enough editors to review the changes.
A second difference is that currently the draft version is never locked during the process, instead the editors role is too monitor the edits in the window and change the url in the metadata tempalte to reflect further improvements.
So what needs to be improved to make this process more efficient? To fully automate the process we need many more editors on board. This will have to be put on hold until the project matures, and even then it may be too much (assuming our number of approved articles increases rapidly in that time).
I prefer the placement of the templates by editors who have noticed steady improvement. Or, better, a switch that can be thrown by an author to notify editors it is time to reapprove. Problem with this is that minor, yet important, copy edits will be less likely to be incorporated into approved articles. Maybe every five weeks is the problem (too short a time frame)? Possibly only have an automatic improvement every six months but editors can fast track manually to account for major improvements?
With regard to the count down clock we have it conceptually; there is a timeframe designated. What exactly did your grad students have in mind, a digital count down clock? Could they write a script for such a thing? It might be a good visual if it is possible.
