[EP-tech] Re: Double Approval

christian.gutknecht at ub.unibe.ch christian.gutknecht at ub.unibe.ch
Tue Sep 3 08:56:18 BST 2013


Hi Izam

We recently had a similar requirement. We decided against a second Review section (something like eprint_status: buffer2), since we didn’t want to change too much to the default configuration (inbox, buffer, archive, retired). Yet we added a new stage („quality_control") to the workflow (https://github.com/UB-Bern/boris/blob/master/archives/BORIS/cfg/workflows/eprint/default.xml), where Editor1 (Lecturer) ticks a checkbox when done reviewing and Editor2 (Dean) finishes the review and moves the eprint to the live archive.

In order not to bother the user/student with that checkbox, we made that stage in the workflow dependent on the eprint_status, so it’s only for visible for the reviewing of Editor1/Editor2:

    <epc:if test="!eprint_status.one_of( 'inbox' )">
    <stage ref="quality_control"/>
    </epc:if>

We also added the checkboxes to the user review scope (https://github.com/UB-Bern/boris/blob/master/archives/BORIS/cfg/cfg.d/user_review_scope.pl), so Editor 2 can set in his profile, that he/she only sees (or get notified about) new eprints in the Review menu, where Editor 1 already has done the review and has ticked the checkbox.

In case you do not want Editor1 be able to move the eprint to the live archive, you can duplicate the role of the editor, and remove the corresponding right from one editor, and add it to the other (See editor and editor_live: https://github.com/UB-Bern/boris/blob/master/archives/BORIS/cfg/cfg.d/user_roles.pl).

Best regards

Christian

Von: Izamri Ismail <izamri.ismail at gmail.com<mailto:izamri.ismail at gmail.com>>
Antworten an: EPrints Tech List <eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
Datum: Dienstag, 3. September 2013 06:13
An: EPrints Tech List <eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
Betreff: [EP-tech] Double Approval

Hi All,

I have a question.
Is there any proper documentations where we can do a 2 layer approval process for review on new deposit items?

For example;

1. Students deposits an item
2. Lecturers review the deposits item and APPROVE
3. the APPROVE deposits then goes to Dean to make the final review and APPROVE the deposits to go live.

Appreciate your reply.

Regards and thanks in advance.

Izam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/eprints-tech/attachments/20130903/44acf2a8/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Eprints-tech mailing list