News in the Indico World
Indico keeps moving forward! The main focus of this release was the complete re-engineering of our Paper Reviewing module. The following list summarizes the new features and improvements that are included in the 1.9.10 release, one step before the long-awaited 2.0 release.
Submitting a paper has never before been as easy and straightforward as it is now. Once the call for papers opens, users can submit their papers through the Call for Papers page of the conference:
Another entry point for submitting a paper for a contribution is the contribution page itself.
The paper submission form has also been simplified. Once the user submits their paper, it is marked as Submitted, the corresponding managers and reviewers are notified and the reviewing process begins.
A new feature that we are very proud to announce is the paper timeline page. Submitters, reviewers, judges and managers can all access this page and be informed of the current status of the paper. Moreover, this page provides a timeline indicating all the steps that the paper went through until it reaches its final stage. Last but not least, this page also serves as a communication hub between submitters-judges and reviewers-judges by allowing comments for every paper revision submitted. Users can submit new revisions of their paper, reviewers can submit their reviews and comments and the judges can easily make a decision by having all the necessary information in one page.
|1st revision||2nd revision|
In the Reviewing Area of the conference, the reviewers can have a general overview of the papers that need to be reviewed and the reviewed ones.
Similarly to the Reviewing Area, the Judging Area of the conference provides an overview of the submitted papers to the judges. It lists the papers that the judge is assigned to, allowing them to make a decision but also to assign/unassign content and layout reviewers.
Call for Papers settings
Major changes also affected the management area of the paper reviewing feature. In the dashboard page of the Call for Papers, the manager can find available options and configuration settings, all grouped in a way to reduce complexity and improve discoverability. These include the activation of reviewing types (content, layout) and configuration of deadlines, the management of the paper templates, the configuration of the reviewing settings and teams and other necessary options.
In the reviewing settings dialog, one can manage the reviewing questions of each reviewing type, the announcement of the Call for Papers but also the email notification settings.
The interface for configuring the reviewing teams and the competences of each person is split into 2 dialogs. The competences dialog allows the manager to edit the competences of the reviewing team members quickly and easily:
Apart from the Judging Area in the display area of the conference, managers can also assign papers to the corresponding reviewers and judges through the paper assignment page.
Paper email notifications
Yet another eye-candy is the new HTML layout of the emails sent through Indico related to the paper reviewing process.
The complex interface for cloning an event has now been simplified with our new step-by-step guide.
That’s all for now! We hope you will like the changes this release introduces and of course, we are looking forward to your feedback!
The following list summarizes the new features and improvements included in the Indico 1.9.9 release. Improvements were done mostly regarding the abstract submission and abstract reviewing workflow. The new interface provides users with more intuitive features and give more flexibility to event managers.
Abstract submitted/withdrawn email notification
It is now possible to send email notification also when an abstract was submitted or withdrawn. There is also the possibility to choose from different email templates that can be used as a base for the email notification.
A new concept of “global reviewers/conveners” was introduced. It allows managers to give global reviewing rights to selected users, allowing them not only to review abstracts of a selected track but to review abstracts in all tracks of the event. The distinction between reviewers and conveners is now also much clearer:
- Reviewers provide an assessment of the abstract. They can consult only their own reviews.
- Conveners can read all reviews in their tracks. If the event has been configured accordingly, they can also accept or reject abstracts on behalf of the event organizers/managers.
Exclude questions from abstract reviewing score
When configuring abstract reviewing questions, one can now add questions whose responses will not be included in the average of all scores of abstract reviews.
Submission, reviewing and judgment instructions
Very often organizers wish to provide specific instructions that should be read before an abstract is submitted, reviewed or judged. A new feature allows managers to provide a text that will be displayed whenever one of those actions is about to be performed.
Abstract submission announcement
When abstract submission is open, a nicely formatted message is displayed at the overview page of an event, notifying users that they can start submitting their abstracts.
“Call for Abstracts” page
The new integrated “Call for Abstract” page is a place where users can conveniently find all information regarding the abstract submission process, as well as a list of abstracts they’ve authored/submitted.
New Abstract timeline
The biggest addition in version 1.9.9 is probably the new visual representation of the abstract reviewing process. The timeline provides an easy overview of the abstract reviews as well as the overall score of the abstract.
Reviewers can easily add a review stating their opinion whether the abstract should be accepted, rejected, merged, marked as duplicate or moved to another track.
For judges (event managers) there is a review summary at the end of the timeline. This provides them with an overview that facilitates the decision process.
Reviewers and conveners have now access to a new “reviewing area” where they can easily see in what tracks they are reviewers/conveners of, as well as how many abstracts they reviewed or still need to review.