cos-archives/archival-project

Open Science Collaboration Archival Project

archival-project's Issues

during review, clarify what the selection of junior coders means

Presently, a senior coder must select which junior coders to include in their review. This is not clear from the instructions given, however. I suggest changing the present layout (below)

to one with further elaboration, and a check box in lieu of a dropdown:

Allow senior coder to provide feedback to individual coders upon creation of master coding

This is not very urgent, as they already have the option to email them. We might actually stay with this low-tech approach, as it's easier and email and a google group may suffice.

internal error while reviewing codings

Jon and his students reported this. We don't have the error message but apparently it has been happening for every coding for a while now and didn't in the beginning. Maybe an ID field in the DB that ran out of space? A more informative error message should be in the log.

cannot add a study until page refresh

After accidentally deleting a study, I clicked on the "add study" button. But, nothing occurred on the page. The console reported a 500 error:
jquery.js:8526 GET http://archivalproject.org/studies/shell/420/0 500 (Internal Server Error)

If I refreshed the page, however, the studies I tried to add appeared on the page. If I clicked the "add study" button twice when it seemed to not be working, then when I refreshed the page two blank studies appeared.

No page refresh should be necessary to make these new studies appear.

cannot delete a paper

From my dashboard, when viewing the list of papers, I noticed that one paper's DOI was pointing to the wrong URL (archivalproject.org/papers/XXXX rather than dx.doi.org/XXXX).
I tried to delete the paper to re-add it, but an error occurred.
A few moments before, the same incorrect URL problem occurred but I successfully deleted the paper. I was following the same steps this time to delete, but encountered an internal error.

contact information is incorrect

On the contact page (http://archivalproject.org/pages/contact), Roger's name is spelled incorrectly and links to the wrong email address.
It should read "Roger Giner-Sorrolla" and link to "[email protected]"

coding form improvements

discussion here rubenarslan/OSC-ArchivalProject#10

study name in "previous study name" not updating

When i name a study in a paper, and then go to the next study and want to cite the first one, only the authors/year are available to cite, not the study title I gave it.

Also, the first study in an article should not have anything appear in that dropdown menu.

Add confirmation modal when deleting a study

When coding a study, if the "delete study" button is clicked—or if a keyboard short cut is used for the same purpose—the user is not asked to confirm this action. This results in accidental deletion of entered data.
Users should be prompted with a pop up to confirm their desire to delete the study they indicated.

disallow selecting multiple junior coders' responses

Presently, a senior coder can select a response from multiple junior coders, as shown in the image below:

The senior coder can click on "Save and reload page" but as only one option should be chosen, nothing happens (ie. the blank text field below does not get filled in). To the senior coder, however, it is not clear why.

Only one option should be able to be selected for single response fields (like the name, the test statistic, etc.). When one option is selected already, but the senior coder selects a new one from a different junior coder, the first choice should be de-selected and the new choice should be the only active response.

Edit: clarified that submitting doesn't work.

Internal Error

While attempting to review coded papers a peer and I have been consistently encountering the same error. A screenshot of the visual error display has been attached to this post for reference.

Megan Shultz and Hannah Juzeler
Research assistants to Dr. Jon Grahe

Comparison interface improvements

1. Numbers are compared as strings instead of as numbers (not that big of a problem, probably)
2. Blank and missing entries clutter the interface a little, it might be good to be able to collapse them optionally (maybe using JS).
3. Disagreements on structure are a bit non-obvious. Three improvements would be
   • Sorting tests and studies by number/name in the comparison, so that we have a better chance of aligning the correct ones
     • Highlighting if there is a disagreement on the number of studies or effects in a study in a bigger, bolder font (these disagreements are quite fundamental and may require more coding from the students)
     • Change the order of studies. The easiest way to implement this would be by letting the senior coder rename studies in the junior codings, but this sort of messes up the record. A harder, but less messy way would be to let senior coders drag and drop studies and effects in the comparison table. For that we would need more structure than we have now.
4. We should have a legend for the colour comparisons (green is agreement, red is disagreement)

Have coders highlight/designate where in the article they got a piece of information

Don't really recall whether we really meant to do this for every piece of information? This seems like a lot of extraneous work for coders. Anyone?

Still forwarded to /users/ on signup

shows all email addresses of all users to any spammer.

Allow comparison of all codings simultaneously rather than just 2 at a time

three is sufficient for now, as this is the number we're aiming for and extending the two-coding-comparison to three should be easier than extending it to arbitrary numbers.
Maybe, because we sometimes get more than three, it would be good to be able to select the codings to compare in case there are more than 3.

reviewed_all.ctp is missing

There is only reviewed.ctp which contains only my own reviewed papers, not others.

Allow senior coders to create a master coding

Limit to 1 master coding per study
Auto-populate master coding based on concordant fields
& Lock codings once a master coding is started