added vignettes on conflict of interest and roles and responsibilities

Author: markvanderloo

DESCRIPTION

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 Type: Package
 Package: rj
 Title: Tools for managing the R journal
-Version: 0.2.30
+Version: 0.2.31
 Author: Editor-in-Chief <[email protected]>
 Maintainer: Editor-in-Chief <[email protected]>
 Description: This package provides useful functions for the

NEWS.md

@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
+# rj 0.2.31
+- added vignettes on conflict of interest and roles and responsibilities
+
 # rj 0.2.29
 
 - added a line for AE: decisions for summarise_articles()

vignettes/conflict_of_interest.Rmd

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+title: "Draft: Conclict of Interest"
+author: "Mark van der Loo"
+date: "`r Sys.Date()`"
+output: rmarkdown::html_vignette
+vignette: >
+  %\VignetteIndexEntry{Roles and Responsibilities}
+  %\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
+  %\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
+---
+
+_This document is a proposal does not (yet) reflect current policy of the R Journal_
+
+## What is a conflict of interest?
+
+For the R Journal, it is important that all decisions on papers are taken 
+based as much as possible on objective arguments. A conflict of interest is
+any situation that may hamper the objectivity of such a decision. Examples
+are:
+
+- you are a (past) collaborator in the work discussed in the submission
+- you are a (past) collaborator in a work that somehow competes with the submission
+- one or more of the authors of the submission is a (past) co-author or collaborator
+- one or more of the authors are (close) friends, family, or colleagues
+- one of the authors has (had) influence on your professional life, for example via funding.
+
+
+## What to do in case of conflict of interest?
+
+The most important principle is to be transparent.
+
+### For Associate Editors
+
+If you are asked to handle a paper, and you feel there may be a conflict of
+interest, always consult the handling executive editor. The EE will decide
+whether someone else needs to handle the submission. Regardless of the
+decision, the notification and decision will be archived by the EE.
+
+### For editors
+
+If you are asked to handle a paper, and you feel there may be a conflict of
+interest, consult the Editor-in-Chief. The EE will decide whether someone else
+needs to handle the submission. Regardless of the decision, the notification
+and decision will be archived by the EE.
+
+### For the Editor-in-Chief
+
+If a submission comes in and you feel there may be a conflict of interest,
+never handle the paper yourself. Hand it over to an EE and explain and archive
+the conflict of interest.
+
+
+## How to archive a conflict of interest
+
+Conflicts of interest, and decisions surrounding conflict of interest should be described in
+a plain text file called `conflicts.txt` and stored in the `correspondence` folder
+with the submission. The description should at least contain:
+
+- Date
+- Reason for possible conflict of interest
+- Decision of the executive editor 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

vignettes/roles_and_responsibilities.Rmd

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+---
+title: "Draft: Roles and Responsibilities"
+author: "Mark van der Loo"
+date: "`r Sys.Date()`"
+output: rmarkdown::html_vignette
+vignette: >
+  %\VignetteIndexEntry{Roles and Responsibilities}
+  %\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
+  %\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
+---
+
+_This document is a proposal does not (yet) reflect current policy of the R Journal_
+
+
+This vignette gives an overview of the roles in the R Journal editorial team,
+the responsibilities that come with each role, and an overview of the editorial
+process. There are separate guides that detail the operational and technical
+details, in particular: 
+
+- [Associate Editor Guide](associate_editors_guide.html)
+- [Executive Editor Guide](executive_editors_guide.html)
+- [Editor in Chief Guide](editor_in_chief_guide.html)
+
+All editors are expected to take appropriate action in the case of conflict of 
+interest. See the [conflict of interest policy](conflict_of_interest.html)
+
+
+## Roles and responsibilities in the editorial team
+
+The editorial team consists of four Executive Editors (EE), of which one is the
+Editor-in-Chief (EIC). The EEs are supported by a team of Associate Editors.
+
+The team of EEs follow a rotating schedule. A new member will act as EE for 2
+years, takes the role of EIC in year 3 and returns to EE for their last year.
+
+AEs are in principle appointed for three years, but extensions are possible if
+both the EEs and AE agree.
+
+All memmbers of the editorial team are responsible for signalling possible conflicts
+of interest. See the [conflict ]
+
+
+### Editor-in-Chief
+
+The EIC is responsible for
+
+- Quality and publication of the Journal 
+- Timely and proper handling of submitted papers
+- Ensure staffing of the EE and AE teams.
+- Resolving conflicts between authors and the Journal, where necessary in collaboration with the advisory board.
+
+In particular, the EIC distributes the article workload amongst the EEs. The
+EIC organizes biweekly meetings for the EE team, monthly meetings for the AE
+team, and an annual meeting with the advisory board. The EIC also ensures that
+there are always four EEs and sufficient AEs to handle the workload. Finally,
+the EIC ensures that the quarterly issues are produced and published.
+
+
+### Exectutive Editors
+
+An EE is responsible for
+
+- Proper and timely handling of papers under their responsibility.
+- Take and communicate the editorial decision (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) for papers under their responsibility.
+- Supporting the EIC in recruiting AEs and EEs.
+
+In particular, the EE communicates with AE and with the authors of submissions.
+They ensure that both the reviews, and the decision on submissions are properly
+argued and that this argumentation is both archived and communicated to the
+authors. 
+
+EEs may choose to hand over a paper to an AE but they will typically also
+handle papers themselves. For those papers the EE also takes on the
+responisbilities of an AE.
+
+
+### Associate Editors
+
+An AE is responsible for
+
+- Finding and recruiting appropriate reviewers, such that there are preferably at least two reviews of sufficient quality for each submission.
+- Ensure that both the article contents and the code are sufficiently reviewed.
+- Ensure timely handling of papers under their responsibility
+- Advise the EE on the editorial decision (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject)
+
+
+----
+
+## Editorial Procedure
+
+When handling a new submission, there are several points of decision. Here we
+detail who takes each decision and in which order. The way decisions are made
+can be found in the AE, EE and EIC guides.
+
+When a (re)submission arrives
+
+1. **The EIC decides whether it can be assigned to an EE.** The decision is based
+   on technical checks, including completness, formatting, and reproducibility. 
+   If the checks are not passed, the paper is rejected and the authors could be
+   asked to possibly resubmit. If all checks pass, the EIC assigns the paper to an
+   EE.
+2. **The EE decides whether the submission is of sufficient quality for review.**
+3. The paper is assigned to an AE or handled by the EE.
+    a. Reviewers are recruited by EE or AE. They ensure that enough reviews of sufficient quality 
+       are obtained. 
+    b. If an AE handles the paper, the AE advises the EE on a decision.
+4. **The EE decides whether the reviews are of sufficient quality to support an argued decision**. 
+   Reviews should be clear, objective, and together cover both the paper and the R code.
+5. **The EE takes the editorial decision: Accept/Minor revision/Major revision/Reject**. The
+   EE also archives the decision and communicates it with the authors.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+