Merge pull request #1308 from openjournals/onboarding-guide

Stubbing out onboarding call guide

docs/editing.md

@@ -251,16 +251,18 @@ Please feel free to ping me (@editorname) if you have any questions/concerns.
 
 ```
 At this point could you:
-- [ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
-- [ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
-- [ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
-- [ ] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.
+- Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
+- Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
+- Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
+- Please list the DOI of the archived version here.
 
 I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.
 ```
 
 ### Rejection due to out of scope/failing substantial scholarly effort test
 
+(Note that rejections are handled by EiCs and not individual editors).
+
 ```
 @authorname - thanks for your submission to JOSS. Unfortunately, after review by the JOSS editorial team we've determined that this submission doesn't meet our [substantial scholarly effort](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort) criterion.
 
@@ -329,6 +331,20 @@ This doesn’t mean that you’re the editor, just that you’ve been suggested
 
 ## Expectations on JOSS editors
 
+### Editorial load
+
+Our goal is for editors to handle between 3-4 submissions at any one time, and 8-12 submissions per year. During the trial period for editors (usually the first 90 days), we recommend new editors handle 1-2 submissions as they learn the JOSS editorial system and processes.
+
+### Completing the trial period
+
+JOSS has a 90-day trial period for new editors. At the end of the trial, the editor or JOSS editorial board can decide to part ways if either party determines editing for JOSS isn't a good fit for the editor. The most important traits the editorial board will be looking for with new editors are:
+
+- Demonstrating professionalism in communications with authors, reviewers, and the wider editorial team.
+- Editorial responsibility, including [keeping up with their assigned submissions](editing.html#continued-attention-to-assigned-submissions).
+- Encouraging good social (software community) practices. For example, thanking reviewers and making them feel like they are part of a team working together.
+
+If you're struggling with your editorial work, please let your buddy or an EiC know.
+
 ### Responding to editorial assignments
 
 As documented above, usually, papers will be assigned to you by one of the TEiCs. We ask that editors do their best to respond in a timely fashion (~ 3 working days) to invites to edit a new submission.
@@ -437,3 +453,93 @@ Try to check in on your JOSS submissions twice per week, even if only for 5 minu
 **Leave feedback on reviewers**
 
 Leave feedback on the [reviewers application](https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/) at the end of the review. This helps future editors when they're seeking out good reviewer candidates.
+
+## Onboarding a new JOSS editor
+
+All new editors at JOSS have an onboarding call with an Editor-in-Chief. You can use the structure below to make sure you highlight the most important aspects of being an editor.
+
+**Thing to check before the call**
+
+- Have they reviewed or published in JOSS before? If not, you'll need to spend significantly more time explaining how the review process works.
+- Check on their research background (e.g., what tracks they might edit most actively in).
+- Make sure to send them the [editorial guide](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/editing.html) to read before the call.
+
+### The onboarding call
+
+**Preamble/introductions**
+
+- Welcome! Thank them for their application to join the team.
+- Point out that this isn't an interview. Rather, this is an informational call designed to give the candidate the information they need to make an informed decision about editing at JOSS.
+- 90-day trial period/try out. Editor or JOSS editorial board can decide to part ways after that period.
+- No strict term limits. Some editors have been with us for 7+ years, others do 1-2 years. Most important thing is to be proactive with your editing responsibilities and communicating any issues with the EiCs.
+- Confirm with them their level of familiarity with JOSS/our review process.
+- Point out that they *do not* need to make a decision on the call today. They are welcome to have a think about joining and get back to us.
+
+**Share your screen**
+
+- Visit JOSS (https://joss.theoj.org)
+- Pick a recently-published paper (you might want to identify this before the call one that shows off the review process well).
+- Show the paper on the JOSS site, and then go to the linked review issue.
+- Explain that there are *two* issues per submission – the pre-review issue and the main review issue.
+
+**The pre-review issue**
+
+- The 'meeting room for the paper'. Where author meets editor, and reviewers are identified.
+- Note that the EiC may have initiated a scope review. The editor should not start editing until this has completed. Also, editors are able to query the scope (as are reviewers) if they think the EiC should have (but didn't). 
+- Walk them through what is happening in the pre-review issue...
+- Editor is invited (likely with GitHub mention but also via email invite (`@editorialbot invite @editor as editor`))
+- Once editor accepts they start looking for reviewers.
+
+**Finding reviewers**
+
+- Explain that this is one of the more time-intensive aspects of editing.
+- Explain where you can look for editors (your own professional network, asking the authors for recommendations, the [reviewers application](https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/), similar papers identified by Editorialbot, )
+- Point out that we have a minimum of two reviewers, but if more than that accept (e.g., 3/4 then take them all – this gives you redundancy if one drops out).
+- Don't invite only one reviewer at a time! If you do this, it may take many weeks to find two reviewers who accept. Try 3/4/5 invites simultaneously.
+- The [sample messages](editing.html#sample-messages-for-authors-and-reviewers) section of the documentation has some example language you can use.
+
+**The review**
+
+- Once at least two reviewers are assigned, time to get going!
+- Encourage reviewers to complete their review in 4-6 weeks.
+- Make sure to check in on the review – if reviewers haven't started after ~1-2 weeks, time to remind them.
+- Your role as editor is not to do the review yourself, rather, your job is to ensure that both reviewers give a good review and to facilitate discussion and consensus on what the author needs to do.
+- Walk the editor through the various review artifacts: The checklist, comments/questions/discussion between reviewers and author, issues opened on the upstream repository (and cross-linked into the review thread). 
+- Point editors to the ['top tips'](editing.html#top-tips-for-joss-editors) section of our docs. Much of what makes an editor successful is regular check-ins on the review, and nudging people if nothing is happening.
+- Do *not* let a review go multiple weeks without checking in.
+
+**Wrapping up the review**
+
+- Once the review is wrapping up, show the candidate the checks that an editor should be doing (reading the paper, suggested edits, asking for an archive etc.)
+- Show the `recommend-accept` step which is the formal hand-off between editor and editor-in-chief.
+- The [sample messages](editing.html#sample-messages-for-authors-and-reviewers) section of the documentation has a checklist for the last steps of the review (for both authors and editors).
+
+
+**Show them the dashboard on the JOSS site**
+
+- Point out that this means you *do not* need to stay on top of all of your notifications (the dashboard has the latest information).
+- Highlight here that we ask editors to handle 8-12 submissions per year on average.
+- ...and that means 3-4 submissions on their desk at any one time (once they have completed their initial probationary period).
+- Show them the backlog for a track, and how they are welcome to pick papers from it (ideally oldest first).
+- Show them their profile page, and how they can list their tracks there, and also what their availability is.
+
+**Other important things to highlight**
+
+- Don't invite other editors as reviewers. We're all busy editing our own papers...
+- Please be willing to edit outside of your specialisms. This helps JOSS run smoothly – often we don't have the 'ideal' editor for a submission and someone has to take it.
+- Highlight that editors will have a buddy to work with for the first few months, and that it's very common for editors to ask questions in Slack (and people generally respond quickly).
+- Scope reviews only work if editors vote! Please respond and vote on the weekly scope review email if you can. The process is private (authors don't know what editors are saying). Detailed comments are really helpful for the EiCs.
+
+**Wrapping up**
+
+- Make sure you've highlighted everything in the ['top tips'](editing.html#top-tips-for-joss-editors) section of our docs.
+- Reinforce that this is a commitment, and thay regular attention to their submissions is absolutely critical (i.e., check in a couple of times per week).
+- Ask if they would like to move forward or would like time to consider the opportunity.
+- If they want to move forward, highlight they will receive a small number of invites: One to the JOSS editors GitHub team, a Slack invite, a Google Group invite, and an invite to the JOSS website to fill out their profile.
+- Thank them again, and welcome them to the team.
+
+**Communicate outcome to EiC**
+
+- Let the EiC know what the outcome was, and ask them to send out the invites to our various systems.
+- Work with EiC to identify onboarding buddy.
+- Decide who is going to identify the first couple of papers for the editor to work on.