Call for abstract improvements

[jbenito]

1) When an author insert his name, there are problem. If the name is John Smith, no problem. If the name is Jean-Paul Gauthier, it appears as GAUTHIER, Jean-paul (please see the capital letter missing). This problem does not occur in the account creation, but only in the author inputs. Similarly, some author/co-authors are inputs as P. E. Black and it gives BLACK, P. E. (OK), but P.E. Black comes as BLACK, P.e. 

I know that treating name is not obvious, but could you treat “-“, and “.” as clear separator and put a capital letter after it?
 

2) All the following remarks are wishes for personalization possibilities.

 a) Remove the person title in the list. (example, the list of author when exported in Excel is sorted alphabetically with Dr and Mr and Prof, which I don’t care about. It would be easier to see the family name as first “word”.

 b) Chose the maximal number of primary authors and presenters (1 or 2) 

 c) Limit the number, type and size of uploaded material (during the abstract submission process).

 d) Make upload as mandatory
Also added :)

 g) personalization of the email sent automatically to the submitter for the abstract submission. David has made some changes but this should be permitted to me.

 h) add the modification date on the table. I don’t need to click on each abstract to see if they have changed something in it, I could see on the table that indeed, someone has made some changes, because the modification date is different.


3) For the reviewing process

 a) The number of answer per question is clear. However, it would be great if we could describe the meaning of the number for the reviewer. 0 - no opinion, 1 – poor, 2 – average, 3 – good, 4 - very good, 5 – excellent or what ever we want.

Because my evaluator needs this information to choose correctly.

[add the help.]


4) For a contribution

 a) in some case, a one contribution should appear twice in the programme. Once as oral and once as poster. Having this option would be a great win from our side. 

[review if this is possible (because of our Indico core)]

[jbenito]

Dear Jose,
Thanks a lot for your first comments.
My answers to your questions are:

2a) I meant in the abstract list at present time, as we have not yet move to the acceptation of abstract. But in reality, I would love to have this possibility every where. The export in spreadsheet makes the filter of excel with search much easier if field are not starting with Dr….
2b) Yes
2f) Yes, your suggestion is the good way. After the “S” for submitted, the manager can look at the abstract and considers it fit for evaluation. He/she clicks a button and it appears in the table as “FOO” (please choose the best letters..) Fit for review, ready,

3b) Ihave two examples: 1- I would like to choose a specific email for paper accepted from track 1&2 only. I can not do that, I have to create two different acceptation email.

2- I would like to accept two abstracts for one common presentation. I don’t want to do a merge, as both presenter will still have their individual posters, but I want a common case.

I realize that my second request is not feasible automatically and I should simply accept them individualy as poster and then write an additional email to both presenter about the common case.

My last comments to you are now related to the review evaluation of the abstract
I have sent some question to David on Monday and he is puzzled with the status. I see that when more than one reviewer make some choice, the final result visible on the list of abstract is not consistent. What do I mean.
1) Evaluator #1 says PA, poster, Evaluator #2 says PA, oral, Evaluator #3, PR, poster: Final statement visible is PR. Why?
2) #1 says PA, for track SEE, #2 says PA for track IFE. It appears as PA, not in conflict
3) some where disagreement is seen are shown as UR, some as shown as C. not clear why.

Thanks again.

Best regards
Francoise