Gary Schnabl wrote:
Peter Kupfer wrote:
Tell me if what you are doing is anything like what we did back in the
day. We would have the most recent copy of a file in the main folder
for a chapter and then if you reviewed a file you uploaded it to the
feedback folder. Then the maintainer took the file in the feedback,
accepted and rejected and replaced the file in the main chapter folder
with the current one and then deleted the file in the feedback folder.
Doing it your way is OK, but there is no further peer review after you
committed your editing.
Peter, our past procedure did typically include someone (usually
me) looking over a chapter after a maintainer had accepted/
rejected a reviewer's changes, and before it was put into the
published folder. That's probably a good thing to continue doing.
Whether Gary's method of using an extra subfolder for that last
step is the best way to do it, I'm not sure; but the principle of
an extra final-check by different eyes is good. I can't tell you
the number of times that I have spotted things that a maintainer
has missed when accepting/rejecting changes (missing x-refs, for
example), or the number of times someone has done the same with
chapters I have been working on.
Gary, of course published chapters can be further peer-reviewed.
No reason why not. It happens all the time, and is a good thing.
See my other note on this subject for my concerns about delays in
publishing.
--Jean
